This dissertation proposes that there is a bio-evolutionary element in the selection of reification as an innovative, linguistic device for eliminating periphrastic verbiage in accordance with the survival of the fittest.
Our Sensory motors map  and  25 support a neurological link between manual dexterity and speech. My analysis in this paper points to the importance of linguistico-manual dexterity as a survivalist necessity which forced the adoption of a communicative compaction  of speech via  reification in opposition to periphrastic verbiage as an synergistic elaboration of speech as a survival strategy.

Reification deals with every aspect of human representation and communication, but it only works if there is a match between the intending reifier and the semantic (unquestioning) understanding, education, faith, belief or acceptance of the addressee of the reification.  One of the ironies concerning the word reification is that it is itself a reification, though in contrast to most abstraction, reification can be accurately defined, (to regard  something abstract as a material thing.)

This historical account and theory of reification endeavours to explain reification as an experiential feature of our human domain of world-experience that arises as a biological response to the praxis of our lives characterised as a biological phenomenon. For some people it is only with a profound meta-experiential effort of the imagination that they are able to conceive that a reificatory statement, or a sentence containing hypostatised elements, is ontologically suspect. The psychological profundity of the habituation to abstraction and the ability to distinguish its dangers varies from person to person. On the basis of reification itself being biogenetically instilled in humankind, this discrepancy in the ability to discern its presence as both a communicative advantage and ontological hazard is hardly surprising.

Levy-Bruh writing of the languages of the primitive:

Reification is a useful fallacy selected by nature and reinforced by gradual genetic changes achieved through a series of chance mutations and the well known processes of natural selection. In early man those with the ability to act quickly, to distinguish, to categorise, and above all to reificationally generalise were provided with a distinct advantage for survival.

Those who could manipulate images, hypotheses or possible action were able to enter an originative or figurative realm beyond that of their more neurologically challenged associates. The fact that we seem to be unaware of the reasons why we reify philosophical concepts so profusely may be intended by nature. We are reminded of Ruse's well known question/suggestion that the origin of morality could be biological.

The General Theory of Reification claims that the thingification of transcendental ideas is selected and biologically transmitted as an involuntary, heritable neuro-linguistic process integrative with the central nervous system and imposed on us on us by our DNA for reproductive ends? 26

With Ruse's words ringing in our ears, it might be fruitful in order to understand our apparent unawareness of the useful fiction that we call reification if we slightly modify and paraphrase Ruse's comment as: The thingification of states of affairs and universals is no more than an unconscious collective illusion fobbed off on us by our genes for reproductive ends.

For prestige reasons, the soft sciences try to take on the mantle of the hard sciences by using scientific sounding terminology, which consists almost totally of reification of one sort or another. So we see softer domains of study attempting to shift from the terminologically-reified center to the terminologically-stricter and harder scientific right.

Theoretical explanations can sometimes be made more evident by showing how they belong to our daily life. So that it may be made apparent how we human beings are all involved in the biogenetic accounts that I provide, I must mention some support for my supposition of soft <--> hard shift in certain sections of science and the fact that it is not a one-way street.

As far as the members of a hard science softening their discipline is concerned, Catt can only mean being less objective. Being to greater extent influenced by emotion or personal bias entails being less explicit or willing to challenge existing paradigms. It also necessitates employing fuzzy, abstract, reificative language, which is less specific and less open to criticism. It suggests a slackening of rigour fuelled by fears of a lack of success, or the inclusion of abstraction or reificational descriptive language in findings and reports in order to conceal areas of uncertainty. In this manner the scientist makes his status, career and research grants more secure by tempering the uncompromising resolution of his approach and confining himself to more traditional or establishment expectations.

The effect of such a softening of the scientific discipline is a movement by elements of the hard scientific right to the abstractive and reificatory comfort zone of the soft concretist center. 27 Inductive sociology, philosophy, psychology and the other soft sciences rely on ideational models as real things for simulating situations where Popperian-style falsifiable deductive checks are impossible to apply. Unfortunately a secondary and usually adverse effect of this reliance upon concretised states of affairs is that it is often built on data that has no relation to the real world. Such reified models are not formed by the coalescence of material particles but of a coalescence of disparate conceptualisation.

There is a paradoxical paradigm of a shift on the part of one fact-finding discipline which perceives it to be in its interest to tone down or modify the amount of reification in its discourse for purposes of credibility, whereas another investigatory body may perceive a need to do precisely the opposite and increase the amount of reificatory language for the same reason.

It may well be that this behaviour is a response to the need to submit annual progress reports to the sources of funding in order to obviate uncomfortable scrutiny from the expectant providers of research grants impatient for results. Whatever be the case, it provides a good example of the dual nature of reification as a persuasive or disingenuous tool.

Before we begin to explore the historical, biological background of WHY we reify, perhaps we should briefly remind ourselves of HOW we reify. Whilst we know that to reify is to consider an abstract concept to be real, it might be useful at this point before we turn to other things, to attempt a more accurate definition of the actual process of reification itself?

What is going on in our brains when we reify? Here are three possible accounts of the neurological processes that generate reification:

Thus are human ideas and actions linguistically liquefied then crystallised 28 into more manageable singular concepts. Soon such terms take on concretised lives of their own. The heterogeneous elements of far-flung men and whirring machines, the rustling of papers at board-meetings, the wild gesticulations of brokers on the floor of the money exchanges and runs on the dollar or the yen are treated grammatically and sententially as if it were some huge, single, global object.

The financial phenomenon becomes a thing, which can't be bucked, an object that responds to a reified world of commercial activity, where goods and services are bought and sold, driven by the paramount reification known as capitalist competition. So it is that abstract nouns transmogrify into things and words such as education take on a solidity comparable with the bricks and mortar of the educational establishments wherein the educators and the educable (or uneducable) gather to educate or be educated.

Why shouldn't neuro-biological driven reification be considered as the original: One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind? In an evolutionary sense man's earth-bound quantum jump of neuro-linguistic compaction via reification was even more awe-inspiring than Neil Armstrong's famous step down upon the moon's surface. Without man's awesome abstractive giant step forward that set him apart from all other animals and which enabled our species to make that long journey from the caves to Cape Kennedy, the flight to the moon could never have taken place.

Here in theme two I advance my theory that the reification of abstraction has a biological basis, which not only sits comfortably with notions of interactive advantages for the individual human in his competition with the other members of his or her social group, but also provides support for evolutionary ethical explanations which are dependent upon group-selection accounts of social behaviour.

Many people are under the impression that the reification  intentionality exists, when in fact flora and fauna react to stimuli in accordance with a genetical script which has developed over periods of millions of years as the most appropriate survivalist sequence of DNA proved pragmatically suitable for survival and reproduction. Plants turn their leaves to the light because they are deterministically programmed to do so. They do so in a reflex manner, much as a computer programme executes its script in accordance with the composition of its arranged, patterned electronic entitic components.

The elements involved are electro-chemical and matergic  respectively in the case of both organisms (including humans) and inorganic entities like computers and the thermostat which controls a central-heating system. Our brains are self-registering survivency organs, evolved to provide continuous feedback of its own indications at the maxima and minima of experiential variations. Our brains provide a ceaseless biologic systems-analysis backed up by an informative biographic arcanum of stored stratagems for survival and response to stimuli.

What is often mistaken for intentionality in humans is simply the compliant  brain calculating the most efficient method of executing the genetically created deterministic programme given its present internal state in relation to the extraneous circumstances of the current environment.

The cerebral calculative scripted pattern that specifies and initiates how a certain input sequence (usually a cascade of sensorial matergic entities) affecting the neurological network) should be mapped to a behavioural output sequence judged to be the best manner to carry out its electro-chemical instructional script, but only the calculating human brain-tissue - the datergic (energised-data) processor exists. The DNA scripted embodied brain and the matergic electronic objects which cause a PC to operate in certain predetermined ways are both materialistic, matergic, objective force-fields (call them what you wish) and in spite of the transcendentalist claims to the contrary, there is nothing metaphysical involved - at least during the last two and a half millennia no evidence has ever been produced to back up such emphatic declarations or non-evidential assumptions.

One has no option but to conclude that such bizarre claims concerning the fictional "objects" - the stripped beings- the pure existents - that some realists believe exist bereft of them existing in a particular fashion, way, form, or combination of existential states or modalities are no more than an internalised  reality-disconnect.

Effective communication entails the ability to abstract and reify perceptions of socially situational complexity into more easily grasped conceptual concretisations and objectified universals whilst remaining aware of the semantic distortion that may be engendered if the addressee interprets the thingification involved differently from that of the addressor.

This treatise is an attempt at a bio-evolutionary account of the human tendency to hypostasise generality, to entify change, to objectify time and motion in spite of the favourable or unfavourable paradoxes that sometimes result, (see Zeno's Achilles and the Tortoise). Communicatively it is very convenient and timesaving to tweak and thingify verbs and to magic gerunds and adjectival nouns and phrases into mental objects or real things. There is nothing more that nature responds to better than time saving stratagems.

Saving time saves lives. Saving biologically-deemed suitable lives means the likelihood of more opportunities for the selfish gene to sow its wild oats, or deposit its ethically controlled futurity in the security of a morally stabilised matrimonial monandry. It is the conatus inherent in the human entity, which prompts it to develop complexity-free communication in order to transmit information quickly.

Descriptive competence and clarity in communication help an individual and the group of which it is a member to compete and obtain individual and societal advantage and to transfer its hereditary script via DNA. The limited abstractive and language abilities of the higher apes appear to be purely functional rather than communicative (using a stick to dislodge objects, etc), and it would appear that whilst many animals display ingenious behaviour, much of the seemingly intelligent behaviour of non-human creatures (the construction of spider's webs, beavers' dams, etc) is characterised by zoologists as instinctually imprinted, hard-wired conduct.

Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behaviour. Instincts are unlearned, inherited fixed action patterns of responses or reactions to certain kinds of stimuli. Innate emotions, which can be expressed in more flexible ways and learned patterns of responses, not instincts, form a basis for the majority of responses to external stimuli in evolutionary higher species, while in the case of highest evolved species both of them are overridden by actions based on cognitive processes with more or less intelligence and creativity or even trans-intellectual intuition. [43] (Nationmaster Encyclopedia. 2008).

Examples of instinctual fixed action patterns can be observed in the behaviour of animals, which perform various activities (sometimes complex) that are not based upon prior experience and do not depend on emotion or learning, such as reproduction, and feeding among insects. Other examples include animal fighting over territory, animal courtship behaviour, internal escape functions, and building of nests.

Surely reification, which I believe has also been selected by nature for parallel generative reasons, is not an instance of our genes being morally or ethically concerned - but simply that the less linguistically advantaged or individuals less ethically committed to enjoying the superior or more favourable position that familial stability usually provided were gradually eliminated from the gene-pool?

Surely reification, which I believe has also been selected by nature for parallel generative reasons, is not an instance of our genes being morally or ethically concerned, but is simply that the less linguistically advantaged or individuals less ethically committed to enjoying the superior or more favourable position that familial stability usually provided were gradually eliminated from the gene-pool?

If we identify reification as a communicational ploy or linguistic tool intended to convey a message quickly, or to rhetorically or grandiloquently obfuscate, to manipulatively minimize, to persuasively maximise or employ any other of the reificational ploys in order to secure an advantage or an understanding in response to individual, social and group incompatibilities and conflicts, we can see immediately why such terminology was valuable for natural selection.

Even so, reification had another huge benefit or advantage to offer society in times of warfare. In the hand-to-hand engagements experienced by our forefathers, non-complex, clear commands and warnings were essential. Where voiced reificatory commands could not be heard above the din of battle, single cries, trumpets or drums were used. A certain blast on a bugle signalling a defensive retreat is actually a musical reification that carries a complex message in a compressed audible form.

Reification has two aspects - it can both confuse and clarify human communication. The obfuscational form of reification can now be seen as an out-of-control linguistic phenomenon that is developing and rapidly reproducing in a viral or a meme-like manner. Faced as we are with a culture totally accepting of an extreme and antithetical form of reification to which they appear totally committed, we in the West are experiencing a juncture in history when absolute clarity of meaning and purpose is essential, particularly in the way that we refer to and speak about other cultures where reificational meanings can convey something entirely different.

So why have certain forms of reification become counterproductive to global society in general and philosophy, the humanities and the sciences in particular? The answer for philosophy is simple. Clarity is at a premium. In an age of specialisation, non-specificity and obfuscation have become a liability - not a benefit. A deluge of meaningless verbiage has overwhelmed philosophy.

Clarity is now the exception rather than the norm. It is now reification itself which is rapidly replicating, rather than the reifying humankind it came about to help rapidly reproduce. Current philosophy consists of a questioning of givens - not of their very givenness.

Obfuscation blurs this distinction. In most universities it is no longer a philosophical question of whether being, movement or change (insert your own reification here) actually exist, i. e., whether there actually ARE such phenomena, but rather function as agencies for the investigation, study and discussion of the historical nature of such ancient ontological views and givens and how they relate to modern thinking. Already in the most embryonic stages of evolution there is an opposition between two coincident but mutually antagonistic feelings of inflexibility and malleability.

The more complex the organism develops, the stronger the tendency towards persistence and interiorised attitudes and modes of thinking. Instinctual and automatic patterns of behaviour in reaction to specific situations give way to a strictly comfortable functional intelligence characterised by rigid patterns of perception and meanings as the process of adaptation to changed environments goes on. In my opinion there is a definite reciprocal relation between the amount of abstraction and reification employed in human communication and the entropic communication principle. 29 As reificatory entropic nonsensicality increases and semantic specificity decreases, meaningful communication will degrade pro rata.

The plasticity of language is biologically programmed to respond to historical survivalist paradigms and will take a long genetical period to exhaust itself and for nature to 'get the message' and start selecting for ontological accuracy rather than speed.

Like reificational action replays, these perceptual blueprints and meanings are vital requirements for the human organism that endures within a given systemic environmental paradigm. Thus the very mechanisms of the evolutionary process of higher animals are those that cause and determine the inclination towards semantic rigidification and the objectification of events that is the predominant property of reification. Eventually intellectual ossification sets in. Internalised habit patterns are no longer recognised for what they are. New versions are ignored or repressed. Lateral thinking or conscious semantical management shuts down and a new reifications is born.

The unique powers of perceiving, learning, reasoning and knowing in human animals are the most important adaptive enables of their physical continuance. Not only is the work of the human imagination rule-governed, it is itself the system of all rule-governed activity - a reified schematism of patterned behaviour. Reification was a vital component of the mechanisms of shamanist ritual and prediction and a necessary actuator in the adoption of the mythic stories necessary to achieve social or military goals and ultimately - survival and proliferation.

Reification as developed by the Greeks has served the West well. The Greek genius for abstraction and reification released an explosion of human enquiry and ingenuity into every aspect of human culture and science.

My own view is that to include any abstraction into scientific, philosophical, psychological political, or theological models (and to a large extent in natural language) is in order to achieve two quite separate objectives. One use is acceptable - the other unacceptable and that only by understanding reification can we make valid judgements.

   

Surely energy like all abstraction is merely a reification of the activity of a perceived process into a thing? Similar to the way that ’love’ is reified into a quasi-object, when plainly it is only the human objects we characterise as lovers who exist?

And yes, someone else believes that to be true.

For the eliminative determinist there is no need for this definitional confusion and difficulty – nominatively  ‘energy IS matter and vice-versa!’ All talk concerning the existence and transfer of ‘energy’  in the sense that it is usually used is mystical nonsense. And, as if to cap it all, speaking on the subject of energy, Abbott and Van Ness continue in the second paragraph of their book:

Now you know from whence I got the term *primitivisms* in relation to science - I got it from scientists themselves.
Physicists have invented fictional operators in order to continue to existentialise the *let's pretend* descriptive terms used to describe the behaviour of matergic objects which are magically transformed into existential pseudo-objecthood with a flourish of the transcendental twizzle-stick. Movement and energy no more exist than *dancing* does. When you visit the ballet you see human dancers moving the bodies to music - such behaviour is described as *dancing* but it is the behaving, dancing humans who exist - not the dancing. As for *time* - there is no such thing - only timed objects exist - like our clocks are timed in relation to the moving, spinning earth as it circles the sun.

Only objects that are measured, counted, divided, etc. actually exist. Only objects which are timed exist. Only objects which impinge upon other objects or are impinged upon themselves exist, and only physicists and the paraphernalia of their profession exist - the rest is merely a compendium of useful fiction employed because of a lack of knowledge of the actual ontological state of affairs. But that is not to say that an actual ontological state of affairs exists either - *what exists exists in the manner in which it exists* - a tautology I know - but some tautologies are acceptable if they throw light on areas of interest to inquisitive humans.

The way I see it, the idea inventing and of attributing some *mysterious process* which is not understood is unacceptable, and all the fictive *operators* in the imaginative head-meat of their inventors do not magic them into existence. Energy, force, drive, pressure, thrust, cause, influence and all the rest of the elements of the lexically synonymous merry-go-round that characterises science as being the work of some ‘secondary’ even more ‘mysterious’ force that is not understood, is hardly different from that of our primitive ancestors, who, ignorant of the nature of thunder and lightening, attributed the flashing and banging phenomenon to an unknown, invisible spirit who lived in a tree or sat upon the clouds above dangling his human marionettes like some heavenly side-show huckster.

From the eliminativist position many thinkers of 20th century: from Gödel, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, and so forth many areontologically flawed - some more than others. *Relativity* does not exist - only objects which humans class as being related can be found in the world or in space. *Waves* do not exist  - only waving micro-objects that move in a cloud exist when the physics of spatial relocation (the material imperium) deem it expedient to travel that way - if not they move independantly. There are no such things as the *let's pretend variables* of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and self-consistent recursive axiomatic systems don't exist either (they are but meaty templates in the heads of mathematicians and cannot be found in the world) and neither do abstract numbers - though we have symbolic plastic shapes called *numbers* on our front door which we map to useful abtractive categorial  identicative notions.


What exists as far as mathematics is concerned - is meat - human meat - fibrous, chewable flesh (as any cannibal will confirm) of the human animal that thinks. The thinking human meat we call the brain simply thinks - there is no *mind* or consciousness that suspires from the spongy soma like metaphysical laughing-gas from a fleshy swamp. We are the unfortunate inheritors of a religiously inspired neural representation of man as sarcoidal-transcendentalist partnership with what they call *a mind* which somehow exists (though it is never explained how) lodger-like within the meaty property our physical body.

These fleshy brains which exist atop these mobile bodies of ours (which also taxi around that the philo-religious tradition calls our "souls") are comprised of cognising human meat coiled like a sentient sesquipedalian sausages within the thin protective carapace of our skulls. This provides the opportunity to the dualists to make another putative distinction between our neurologising flesh and the *other* world outside* which they label with the reification *reality* as if we had just landed a space vehicle on a strange planet upon which we could not venture outside without first donning osseo-dermatological space-suits. In fact our cognising brains are as much out there in the world as any of the other real objects that surround us

If one ceases to believe in spirits or Gods that once satisfied our forefathers as being responsible for a so-called creation of the universe – then what else is there other than material to be held responsible? By eliminating one of only two dualistic alternatives, a person is left with just one remaining available explanation – an explanation which I am forced to cast into metaphorical language as that of:

                                                Matter itself as being both legislator and legislatee.

The scientist Georges Metanomski has briefly summarized  Einstein's view, not to argue for it - but simply to inform

                          With no diminution of respect for either Metanomski or Einstein - I beg to differ.

Einstein:1. W - An objective World Out There.

Response: Yes, here  I agree. The world undoubtably exists. Those that doubt it (Berkeley et al are lunatics and should be totally ignored .)

Einstein:2. S - Our subjective sensory Inputs:

Response: Sensory Inputs do not exist – a complete myth. Only the human sensor with (material) sensors (organic structures,) eyes that register incoming (material) tachyonic quanta, nose that registers material pheromones, ears that register vibrating (material) air, taste receptors which analyse chemical matter, and the epidermal skin envelope with registers and sends (material) electro-chemical signals to the thinking meat (the material sensorium) above.

Einstein:3. A - Abstract concepts and structures.

Response: Absolutely wrong. Concepts, ideas, and the new fancy replacement name memes do not exist – only the human conceptualisor, ideator with the neurological memetic storage area called grey matter exists.

Einstein: Science - maps S to A representations (AR),

Response: Wrong (or more precisely unclear. ) Representations only exist when they are material representations. Graphite or dried ink particles on paper, pixilations on screens, carvings on wood, plastic or stone etc. Only that which is represented exists. Neurological representations do not exist. Only the representing brain meat exists.

Einstein: Science endeavors to structure ARs as deductively consistent models,

Response:Only the neurologically active modeller (the scientist) and his material models exist. The model that the scientist ideates actually exists as a mode of the way his brain exists. if the modeller imparts knowledge of the modular way he exists to an addressee, the addressee immediately changes the way he exists to that of a similar existential modality as the informant modeller or rejects the mode of the modeller and stays the way he exists in a modality of rejection.

Einstein: Science verifies or falsifies models by regression to S.

Response: For the modeller to verify or falsify models by regression to S. simply means that he adjusts the way he exists in a similar way to the way he might adjust the way he is sitting upon a chair. His neuronal and physiological state changes – he exists in a different way to before he verified or falsified his model or arranged his gluteous maximus in a different or more comfortable manner.


As can be seen I agree with Einstein and with his student Georges Metanomski, but with certain important reservations. For me the reification: physical reality is only exclusively reducible to sense impressions for those people who accept that real objects are legitimately indicated with such terms as: reality and human observers accurately characterised as being the originators and curators of a metaphysical museum of qualia-like sense impressions. Thus the problem with Einstein's writing in the above form of words, is that they do not sufficiently clarify the ontological commitment of the author. Thus, as a genius and as the most brilliant scientist of the twentieth century he is perfectly correct in what he believes - but (because even geniuses can't be expert polymath jack-of-all-trades in everything) lacks the absolute exactitude necessary for an ontologically crystal-clear account of his position. For me only that which is physical exists and the term real is merely a synonym for exists.

Physical reality (which is all things to all men) is not a sufficiently scientific term to describe the ontological ramifications of the astounding (but in many ways imperfect) human sensorium (our neurological meaty-bits) and should be scrapped by the cognoscenti in philo-scientific discussion and Einstein's wording modified to read:

In other words, no matter what the nature of any future instrumentation or technology devised to add to our sensing of matergy which surrounds us, we will never be able to perceive of it as it actually exists - never - ever. We need to come to terms with our successful, well proven (environmentally and evolutionary) acquired knowledge of the objects we encounter and withdraw the silly reification nominal from our scientific vocabulary.

Kant postulated that man’s speculative reason (intelligent guesswork) can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon (or the thing-in-itself - das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon - the thing as it appears to an observer.

What we observe as we view a banana is what the object we call a banana looks like, feels like, smells like, and tastes like (and if you count the thunk! – it makes when you hit someone on the head with it) what it sounds like to humans. Why? Because we cannot sense (what humans call a banana) in any other way, the manner for example how a banana is sensed by a cat, or a pongo pygmaeus or house-fly.

Now Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon. He also added that man is not altogether excluded from the noumenal because of a reification he calls practical reason (i. e. opinion) provides the capacity for acting as a moral agent (which can presumably include the desire to blow yourself and other people to pieces, or burn people alive ( a la the Inquisition), or drop bombs on babies, (a la Iraq, etc.) and that such wicked activity makes no sense unless a noumenal world is postulated in which freedom, access to markets, God, and immortality (and any other reification one cares to add) abides amongst the recognisably noumenal charred bodies of the innocents.

But it all depends upon the cognitive depth of that penetration. There is no need to penetrate to the molecular levels of a banana in order to understand why in 2008 Britons perceived, named, bought and consumed an unprecedented 3.5 billion pieces of the tropical fruit, forcing our native apple into a poor second place. the fact that the banana took over as Britain's most favourite fruit is because it is phenomenologically sufficient to be able to perceive a banana as a tasty, nutritious food-source  (other than to those humans to whom the protein found in banana called chitinase, causes the immune system in some individuals to overreact and treat the protein as harmful to your body.

All organisms, sense a banana differently. Every human being on the planet senses a banana SLIGHTLY differently (differentials of ocular and sensorial paraphernalia and the various ambient lighting and other conditions prevailing during the viewing.) and no banana is exactly the same as another (otherwise it would BE that banana) but in spite of that the human sensorium is sufficiently similar to allow practically all humans (other than those handicapped in some way, etc.) to recognise and name the object that humans call a banana - as  - a banana.

All perception of objects in immanent, but there are varying degrees of both perception and neurological immanency (presence of mind or Vernunft or bon sens) in which humans can come to an acceptable appreciation and interfacial understanding of the existential manner of the matergy they confront. Humans have a sufficient-enough-for-purpose (assez suffisant ŕ l'usage prévu) immanentist perception in relation to bananas and most of the other matergic objects with which we share the world (for example - we are immanently enough equipped to flee from a rapidly approaching 5-ton truck, or a tiger on the loose, and to navigate a spacecraft to Mars by proxy.)

For the most part our level of immanency is developed enough and has served us well enough throughout our long journey from the African savannah via the Lascaux Caves to Cape Kennedy - for the rather brusque term noumena to be scrapped in relation to the matergic objects with which we are (species specifically) familiar.

As to the matergies which remain (for the moment ) still outside our understanding (we can use our sufficiently immanent understanding of a banana as a cognitive rule of thumb if we wish) such as electrons and other as yet not completely categorised quanta, which pro tem are obfuscationally referred to as being energy, force, movement, time, or being reposited in number, sets and other useful fictions – they can (if people MUST have some term to refer to as yet imperfectly understood entities) remain for the time being referred to as noumena or the slightly more farcical qualia.

This last section of chapter four is in the form of a warning. The Western world of today is faced with a threatening form of vulgar, systematised reification commensurate with fascism and communism. The useful but much misused Greek gift of reification has become a malefic handicap that could result in the complete annihilation of the species, which it biogenetically developed to nurture. Putting it bluntly, one cannot fight one unified, agenda-driven, systematised reification with the sort of reificational mish-mash characteristic of the Western hemisphere's metaphysical omnium-gatherum.

Western philosophers need to develop a universally understood, semantically detailed method of clear-thinking. The semantic non-specificity and corrosively systemic disarray caused by the traditional abstraction of historical philosophy no longer serves us well. The indiscriminate reification of socio-cultural and socio-political phenomena displays a crude inclination towards representing the globe through the lens of occicentric prejudice. Our representation of Islamo-centric semantic and theological categories ignores the subtleties of intra-cultural specificities. Vulgar Western commentators wielding hurtful reifications or xenonyms 30 confront large sections of our fellow man as: freeloading Hispanics, aggressive Muslims, robot-like Japanese and lazy Africans, etc., whilst an increasing outpouring of anti-Western vituperation floods back in the other direction. Below, in my conclusion, I suggest that the age-old biological bonus of reification may have run its course as a species-specific selective tool. and that it is only the partial abandonment or curtailment of reification, rather than its continued copiousness, that will save humanity now.