[MD] Keep on ...

118 ununoctiums at gmail.com
Mon May 16 19:36:22 PDT 2011 

Hi Marsha,

Sometimes what a word means to one can be seen by what antonym one
chooses for it.  Therefore, I challenge you to present an antonym for
reify or any of its derivatives.  You may find this difficult since an
antonym of such a thing is a reification in itself (if I get your
drift about this concept).  Therefore unreify or deriefy or areify are
nonsense and do not exist.

What you may find, however, is that the antonym of reify is a finger
pointing right at Dynamic Quality.  Does this help at all with the
reify concept?

Mark

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:56 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I am sure you are sick of my posts, but I had this article from the
> interent that might explain more of my understanding of reification
> from a Buddhist point-of-view.  Here's a little bit quoted from
> the article and the url:
>
> "To reify is usually defined as mistakenly regarding an abstraction as a thing. It is derived from the Latin word res meaning 'thing'.
>
> Reification in Western philosophy means treating an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it were a concrete, physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
>
> In Buddhist philosophy the concept of reification goes further.Reification means treating any functioning phenomenon as if it were a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an impermanent process."
>
>
>
>
>
> http://seanrobsville.blogspot.com/2009/12/reification-in-buddhism-ultimate-and.html
>
>
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 16, 2011, at 12:51 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> HI Mark,
>>
>> I've read the book and enjoyed it very much.  I believe the quote I offered
>> was by dmb, and not James, and I agree with the quote..  I have not
>> misunderstood it, but interpret reification through a more Buddhist
>> presentation.  For now I'd like to drop the subject.  On Thursday I will be
>> receiving a houseguest for two weeks, and probably will have little time
>> for the MD. Until Thursday I will be quite busy with preparations.
>>
>> Enjoy the book.
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 16, 2011, at 12:23 AM, 118 wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> Thanks for your posts.  To be honest, I have a hard time keeping track
>>> of what she said he said, all the way down to what James said.
>>> Currently I am reading through a biography of William James by R. D.
>>> Richardson (2006).  This provides context instead of the philosophy of
>>> James.  It is interesting to read about all the characters involved.
>>> If it were written slightly differently it would resemble a novel by
>>> Charles Dickens. James did not have to work, so had plenty of time to
>>> read all sorts of stuff from Western to Easter philosophies.
>>>
>>> Now, about 200 pages in, I am reading what James was writing around
>>> 1887.  He and Alice had finally agreed to marry and during their
>>> honeymoon he writes a short essay that starts his ideas about
>>> consciousness.  When their son (Henry, of course) was born, his wife
>>> moves in with her family and James is not allowed to live with them.
>>> He therefore has more time.  His writings are rebuttals to other big
>>> thinkers at the time.  He conceives "The Sentiment of Rationality"
>>> which is followed by "Rationality, Activity, and Faith", and begins
>>> his voyage outside of rationality as the sole source of consciousness.
>>> He speaks of our "Spontaneous Powers", which I interpret as dynamic
>>> quality.  The Metaphysical Club had pretty much ended at that time
>>> after Chauncey Wright, and James was starting on a new path.  He is
>>> still in his thirties at this time.  He seems to align himself with
>>> the liberal Platonic tradition (not of The Republic, but of the
>>> Timaeus).  He references the "emancipating message of primitive
>>> Christianity".
>>>
>>> He abandons philosophy as the search for truth, stating that it
>>> doesn't exist.  Something we discuss here, and I do my best to
>>> explain.  As James proclaims, such belief is "an exorcism of all
>>> skepticism as the the pertinency of one's natural faculties."  James
>>> intellectually tries to derive a new form of intellectualism.  He is a
>>> follower of Emerson, and believes firmly in the NOW.  Again something
>>> that I have brought up several times in its relationship to dynamic
>>> quality.
>>>
>>> I am not sure what is meant by your reification, and I do not want to
>>> misinterpret, so I will not go there.  But, dmb may be correct with
>>> his quote.  I wouldn't put it as harshly as what you (he?) state
>>> below.
>>>
>>> So, context is important.  We should know why James said certain
>>> things and the overall attitude of his times.  He was desperately
>>> trying to get a professorship anywhere, and was therefore beholden to
>>> some in what he wrote.  I wouldn't take dmb's quotes too seriously
>>> since they often seem to be placed in an attempt to elevate.  I am
>>> interested in what others think, not in what they think what others
>>> think.
>>>
>>> There is a lot more than words on a page going on.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:24 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark,
>>>>
>>>> I see reification as a tool too.  But as dmb says that James says, "Intellectualism becomes vicious, he said, when concepts are reified, deified and the empirical reality from which they were abstracted in the first place is denigrated as less than real."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marsha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 15, 2011, at 10:54 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay...
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't remember using my statements as a whip to beat you.
>>>>> These are merely words.  You definitely use a eclectic bunch
>>>>> of words.  You can always ignore mine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 15, 2011, at 10:24 AM, 118 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> The purpose of MoQ (imo) is to provide awareness of the traps
>>>>>> presented.  If the cage is seen as such, one can move beyond it.
>>>>>> Reification, as you use it, is a tool.  We could consider the computer
>>>>>> to be a cage, but many do not.  The separation you mention can be
>>>>>> destroyed through MoQ.
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:46 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And in this reification process, it is that cage wall that creates separation between the phenomenon/concept and the self when an image, construct or definition is erected and assigned.  imho
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me this quote represents reification, where the cage of a definition excludes context, intuition and heart.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RMP:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "... The definition is a cage...  You set limits on what a word is.  You set limits on what your experience is.  And those limits, which you set in order that you can manipulate these words, are also a cage for that word.  It can't go beyond it one way or another."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  ('The MOQ at Oxford', Part 4: The Church of Reason)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ___
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>>>>> Archives:
>>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>>>> Archives:
>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>>> Archives:
>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>> Archives:
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>>
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list