----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn
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!!!
Ron:
I think you are on it. A dog is a pattern of qualia and conceptual
understanding to form differing levels of experience. This of course is
An intellectual concept but it explains a relationship which is
verifiable
With experience.
Marsha:
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.
Ron:
What I mean is that language, because it is a cultural universal,
naturally
Evokes concepts of universals. Everyone's experience is unique which the
Universality of language renders normative. I use the term Radical
In the same context that William James termed Radical empiricism
Which excludes nothing in the formulation of its value sets basing
Meaning in individual contexts of truth finding and forming concepts.
In other words it gives you
The tools to construct your own metaphysic of one, which conflicts
With the universality of the language we use to talk about it.
There is a paradigm shift in the language we use to discuss MoQ.
We begin to mix abstract and concrete distinctions which conflict
in meaning when forming whole concepts.
When we experience a dog we experience it inorganically organically
Socially and intellectually. What we can say about or conceive of the
experience is limited intellectually. So when we begin to speak
abstractly
About concrete concepts, and concretely about the abstract, things get
funky when constructing whole understandings. That is why I say that it
Increases understanding by being aware of how this linguistic
Tool functions in our conversations and conceptual theories.
When we speak concretely we take on a "gods eye" conceptual
understanding
Of universality. Which conflicts with the abstract reference we use
To describe a particular experience.
In this fashion, , experience is dynamic, how we conceptualize it is
static.
As a concrete universal concept.
We now pick up our DQ/SQ linguistic tool and apply it to the paradigm of
static concrete universal levels. Social and intellectual are more
dynamic
Than organic and inorganic when speaking concretely or statically.
This way we can speak of dynamic patterns as static concepts.
Which was what all the fuss was about with Bo, it rendered SOL
Superfluous. Some think I am full of it, but as of yet no one
Is able to demonstrate why they think that, but it does open
Up dynamic dialog without conflicting with the in-definability
Of the concrete aspect of Dynamic Quality.
It explains a lot and brings us together. What disappointed me
Was Bo could talk a good game but he couldn't demonstrate
A damn thing.
Like you, it's gotta work for me.
Hi Ron,
I didn't mean 'work for me'. What needs to work for me is more like SA's
trees. I'm trying to further my understanding of the MOQ by playing it
against my understanding of Buddhism, and vice versa. My hopes are that
both will advance. But doing this on my own is risky because I may be far
off track with both of them, or put myself far off track. And why, I
wouldn't mind being challenged.
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/
