[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[118]

Marsha,
If your post is simply an attack on dmb, could you let us know?  I
don't want to get caught up in these squabbles.

Could you provide me with your definition of reification?  Otherwise
your statement does not make much sense to me.  If reification is
simply the formation of static patterns, then you are self defining.
That is, the "formation of static patterns" results in "static
patterns".  If you are saying that static patterns are ONE product of
reification, then perhaps we can discuss the other products.

I wonder if all reification produces static patterns.  How about a
reification that does not produce static patterns, such as the
reification of beauty?  The appreciation of something is certainly a
reification, but what is the pattern therein?  Such appreciation lies
beyond the visual or words, and is intuited.  When someone is in love,
this is a reification for him/her even if he/she does not know how to
describe it, in my pea-brained opinion.  I am open to suggestions

Send me a quote, if you cannot find the words to describe reification
and we can take it from there.  If you think this is a trap, then you
are projecting, and I do not want to play that game.

Mark

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:53 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> My point was that dmb, who was complaining about my alleged reference to illusion (alleged because he did not provide any context or examples) in his discussion with Dan, was quite capable of providing a RMP quote referencing 'illusion' when it suited his argument with you.
>
> For me, all static patterns, due to a relationship with consciousness (perceptual and conceptual), are a product of reification; language just reflects this.   Processes are decontextualized and temporarily "frozen" by reification to form patterns.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
>
>> Hi Mark, Marsha,
>>
>>>> RMP:
>>>> "Some of the most honored philosophers in history have been mystics:
>>>> Plotinus, Swedenborg, Loyola, Shankaracharya and many others. They share a
>>>> common belief that the fundamental nature of reality is outside language;
>>>> that language splits things up into parts while the true nature of reality
>>>> is undivided. Zen, which is a mystic religion, argues that the illusion of
>>>> dividedness can be overcome by meditation. The Native American Church
>>>> argues that peyote can force-feed a mystic understanding upon those who
>>>> were normally resistant to it,..." (LILA, ch 5)
>>>
>>
>> Steve:
>> I think this bit relates to the "why isn't the MOQ more popular?"
>> question. As I understand it, the idea that reality has a true nature
>> was already out of style when Lila came out. Pirsig was offering a fix
>> for metaphysics when philosophy had already become anti-metaphysical.
>> The question of the true nature of reality was no longer "live."
>> Post-pragmatism in the US and post-existentialism in Europe,
>> philosophers were no longer so inclined to think of reality as the
>> sort of thing that has a true nature that needs to be discovered. The
>> mystic's complaint that language can never capture the true nature of
>> reality doesn't resonate with anyone who doesn't see language as
>> having that goal to begin with. Language doesn't _fail_ at capturing
>> the true nature of reality if that was never the function of language.
>>
>> Best,
>> Steve
>> 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
>