[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[Carl Thames]

>
> Hello Carl,

Hello, Marsha.  I sincerely hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you. 
Your posts are usually shorter, more to the point, and I feel more 
comfortable replying to them.

>
> On Nov 22, 2011, at 4:43 AM, "Carl Thames" <cthames at centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- 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?
>
>
> What concept?

"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' "

This one, mostly.  We don't have the ability to truely understand the "real" 
reality of the Atman, but we do have the ability, or at least the tools, to 
understand the reality that we experience on a day-to-day basis (Prikriti). 
If we had the ability to understand the true reality, would it change?  On 
the surface that seems to be a non-sensical question, since real is real is 
real, but we are co-creators of our reality, ergo if we had access to the 
ultimate reality, would we be co-creating there as well?  No way to really 
answer that one, is there?  Maybe a better question would be to ask, "if we 
had access to direct knowledge of the ultimate reality, how would we act 
differently?"