SUO: Re: Query: Reification
Jon,
I have only what I'd call a "layman's" understanding of this term, but
in the context I've used it, I intend it to signify the creation of a term
to denote a statement of a relation. A better definition is provided at
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/Reification.html
treatment of an analytic or abstract relationship as though it were a
concrete entity. (Young, p. l09)
The process of regarding something abstract as a material entity,
Whitehead's "fallacy of misplaced concreteness," e.g., the mistake of
confusing a system, which is a construct, with the physical entity
described in its terms (see general systems theory). In social systems
reification is encouraged by the use of language and underlies many
processes of constructing social reality. (Krippendorff)
At 12:22 AM 10/21/2000 -0400, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
>Adam,
>
>In trying to follow the exchange between you and Matthew
>concerned with your joint and several notions of reducing
>n-ary (n-valent) relations to binary (bivalent) relations,
>I find myself tripped up a little by your many references
>to a problematic issue of "reification". It is likely
>that I may have missed an old discussion and I sort of
>know what the word means in a general way, but I was
>wondering if maybe you could give me some sense of
>what your specific use of it means in this context.
>
>Thanx in Prospect,
>
>Jon
>
>P.S. I hope you appreciate the fact that I resisted the
> joke about (Between Exchange Adam Matthew) as long
> as I did.
>J.A.
>
>¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
-----------------
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571