[MD] Keep on duckin'

[MarshaV]

Ron,  

Maybe you can provide where I stated that "reification IS 
the basis of all conception".  Especially where I yesterday 
sent a quote stating:

"I think I have suggested that reification was either a part of the 
conceptualization process, or that there was a interdependency 
between conceptualization and reification."


Marsha





On May 30, 2011, at 8:46 AM, X Acto wrote:

> 
> 
> Ron,  
> 
> Why don't you explain how you understand the contradiction. 
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> 
> Well, for starters, this quote tends to say it all...
> 
> "From a centrists perspective, ontological absolutism is based on the mental 
> distortion known as reification."
> 
> Meaning, that from a pragmatic point of view
> 
> "  As theory is not purely determined by some intrinsic nature of 
>> reality, there is no one conceptual system that uniquely accounts for the 
>> myriad 
>> 
>> of natural phenomena"
>  
> you are taking a position of an ontological absolutism when you assert that the 
> mental
> distortion known as reification IS the basis of all conception. This assertion 
> demands that
> there is only one conceptual system that uniquely accounts for the myriad of 
> natural
> phenomena contending that salvation from it is the subdueing or "killing" of it.
> Wallace talks about reification as a "tendancy".
>  
> This is the difference I see between yours and Wallaces point of view regarding 
> reification.
>  
>  
>  
> -Ron
>  
>  
>  
> ..........................................................................................
> 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


 
___