[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Taking off the glasses?


>
> On Nov 14, 2011, at 8:12 PM, david buchanan wrote:
>
>>
>> Wiki says, "Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of 
>> misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction 
>> (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a 
>> concrete, real event, or physical entity.[1] In other words, it is the 
>> error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, 
>> but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase "fighting for justice" is 
>> taken literally, justice would be reified."
>>
>> In the MOQ, "subjects" and "objects" are probably the most important 
>> examples of concepts that are commonly reified. In Pirsig's books, 
>> gravity, substance and causation are also exposed as concepts rather than 
>> concrete realities. We get this in the ghost stories in ZAMM and in more 
>> explicitly philosophical language in Lila. One of the aims of the MOQ, I 
>> think, is to treat all concepts as secondary additions and this one is of 
>> the main reasons to maintain a distinction between concepts and the 
>> primary empirical reality from which they are derived.
>>
>> At the end of chapter 29 in Lila, Pirsig says, quoting William James,...
>> " 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, 
>> because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is 
>> dynamic and flowing' Here James had chosen exactly the same words 
>> Phaedrus had used for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of 
>> Quality."
>>
>> This "discrepancy" also goes along quite coherently with the mystic's 
>> contention that the fundamental nature of reality is outside of language 
>> and with Pirsig's description of DQ as pre-intellectual experience. The 
>> intellect, words and concepts all work to chop things into bits, to carve 
>> out all kinds of differences, to define and measure. But the fundamental 
>> reality is undivided or continuous or undifferentiated, depending on 
>> which philosopher-mystic is talking. Pirsig calls DQ the "primary 
>> empirical reality" and the "pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality" 
>> even way back in ZAMM. He heard it from Northrop way back when he was a 
>> kid in the Army and then again from James after he wrote ZAMM. I mean, 
>> there is more than one way to get a handle on this fundamental 
>> discrepancy and it goes a very long way as an antidote to reification. 
>> It's quite sweeping in that effect. It slams the brakes on that kind of 
>> fallacy.
>
>
>
> 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)
>
>
> Marsha:
> Yes, the MoQ goes a long way to help intellectually understand the innate 
> tendency to reify does not represent the fundamental nature of reality. 
> The fundamental nature of reality is undivided, unknowable and 
> undefineable.  Empirical evidence of this may be gained though techniques 
> such as Zen meditation.  I wonder how you've empirically experienced this 
> undifferentiated, fundamental nature of reality by reading about it in a 
> book?
>
>
> Hagen:
> "We can't comprehend Reality with our intellects.  We can't pull it into a 
> static view of some thing.  All our explanations are necessarily 
> provisional.  They're just rigid frames of what is actually motion and 
> fluidity.  In other words, if you think of how Reality is, you can be sure 
> that's how it isn't.  Reality simply cannot be put into conceptual 
> form --- not even through analogy, for there's nothing like it.  Reality 
> simply doesn't fit into concepts at all.
> (Hagen, Steve, ‘Buddhism: Plain and Simple’, p.71)

Carl:
I've been following this thread, and it strikes me that it's not all that 
different from the Hindu concept of Atman, (that which never changes, or 
reality) and Prikriti, (our nature as humans, experiencing life through the 
five senses).  Since Buddhism is an off-shoot of Hinduism, I can see where 
that would come from.  The basic concept as I understand it is that we don't 
have the tools to understand the Atman, but we do have the tools to 
understand Prikriti.  The good argument there is which is truely "real" to 
us?  i.e. who gets to define "real?"  Does our ability to understand change 
the underlying concept?