----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn
Marsha:
I would like to see better where Buddhism and the MOQ agree. They both
agree there is no SELF. I see patterns as conventional entitites. I
don't
think that DQ relates to emptiness. Static patterns of value are empty
and
are totally the product of conceptual thought. The four levels are the
product of conceptual thought. The MOQ is a product of conceptual
thought.
Empty. Empty. Empty. Empty. I don't think the net-of-jewels model
fits
into the MOQ. This bother me.
Ron:
Hello Marsha,
If the model fits your MoQ, there is no problem. The universals, as I
see
Them are keeping the mind open to change and open to a constant
evolution
Of your modes of understanding. Experience is a creative act like
painting.
I feel the MoQ is a radical metaphysic. If the net of jewels model
Works and best explains your relation for you then who is anyone to
Say you are wrong?
Unless you were already expressing this, then I digress.
Greetings Ron,
I'm not concerned with being wrong. I've been that plenty. I wanting to
see if it works.
If I view the four levels as all mere categories of concepts: inorganic,
biological, social & intellectual, rather then independent entities, I think
the net-of-jewels model works very well. But I'm never quite sure there's a
consensus concerning what exactly is in those levels especially inorganic
and biological. To me it has to be all conceptual. I think that RMP has
stated that the MoQ is an intellectual-static-pattern-of-value. If that's
the case, I think he would agree that all within the levels is conceptual.
What are, for instance, dogs? Is there anything outside of concept there?
(Actually, this is where the opposite-from-non-dog fits very well.) The
meaning can be very broad or very narrow, depending on w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r.
Object? Independent entity? Empty!!!
Curious. What do you mean by the MoQ being a radical metaphysics? As
opposed to being an ordinary or common metaphysics? I think there are very
few who would _equate_ religion and metaphysics, so what do you mean.
Marsha
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
