Reification: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

7001027941_c99e8034ea_zIn his essay Defending Against the Indefensible, Neil Postman defines reification as the confusing of words and things. He calls it a “thinking error” and goes on to say that “there are no real names for things.”  Postman elaborates when he states that “…definitions are not given to us by God; that we may depart from them without risking our mortal souls; that the authority of a definition rests entirely on its usefulness, not on its correctness (what ever that means); and that it is a form of stupidity to accept without reflection someone else’s definition of a word, problem or situation.”

On this blog I will provide a lot of definitions.  These definitions are useful to me as I try to explain the connections that I am making around small business, economics, philosophy, psychology, biology, quantum physics, electromagnetic radiation, the properties of waves, the power of meta-narratives to inform behaviors and the Generative King Archetype which I began to elaborate on several years ago.  This type of systematic metaphysics is not simple work and there exist few words that are regularly used to explain the universe, and small business (said with tongue in cheek.) Given that this is what I am going to attempt to do in this blog, you would be very gracious to provide me some literary license.  I do understand that the definitions that I will use herein are not those used by God, so far as I know.  Similarly, please consider the possibility that the words that you are familiar with, and the definitions you are used to using, were also not given by God, so far as you know, and that neither of us will risk our mortal souls if we use my definition for the duration of this blog.

Categories: Blog

%d bloggers like this: