Heidegger

In a message dated 9/10/2008 2:06:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:

Bernx at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/9/2008 11:34:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:
>
> .
>
> in a larger sense, the problem is finding a way to obtain the benefits
> of abstraction/reification without paying too high a price; and, blindly
> getting rid of abstractions/reifications *would* be too high a price.
> without reifications such as governments, corporations, deeds of land
> ownership, relationships such as marriage, etc. we would be living a
> stone age existence.
>
> I think you got it backwards, Joe. Thingification (reification) is a
> primitive mode
> of a reality principle that contraverts the ability to abstract and
> concept formation.
> Bernard

there is nothing wrong with calling a stone a thing.

reification is problematic only when it presupposes a prior abstraction;
and, may well constitute a failure to abstract properly or a failure to
understand an abstraction as an abstraction.

Joe

Yes, that is true, Joe, but no sooner name a thing than it is abstracted.
Reification amounts to an unmediated direct relation of sensation to an object
and occurs only when the object is unknown or not understood. That is why I call
it primitive in the sense that it amounts to a magical relation to the thing.
Accordingly, the ability to abstract is in polarity to thingification in the
same relation that unconsciousness is to consciousness.
Bernard

**************Psssst…Have you heard the news? There’s a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles atStyleList.com.
 http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aol…)

Posted on Sunday, September 14th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback