[MD] Keep on duckin'

[MarshaV]

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"

And please note that Wallace's next statement in the paragraph mentions 
not a pragmatic point-of-view, but being relative:  "Objects exist relative to 
the theory-laden consciousness that experiences them."   

The conclusions you reach are a leap beyond my understanding of 
Wallace's statements.


> 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".


Marsha:
And though Wallace does use the word 'tendency,' his statement is a little more 
strongly worded: "The natural tendency of reification, which we have had since 
childhood, is extremely difficult to eradicate from our habits of thinking and 
perceiving."

> This is the difference I see between yours and Wallaces point of view
> regarding  reification.


Marsha:
This speculated difference between Wallace and myself does not exist.  




Marsha 

 
___