Ron to dmb: ...Cause is dependant and relational and his logical tetralemma is used to "logically" arrive at this conclusion.
dmb says: Appreciate the effort, but I don't think I'm ready to handle this guy. In this case, I really am clueless. But if it really is ultimately "empty" of "true" meaning, then maybe cluelessness is a good thing. Ron: Lets back up and start fresh, First let me point you to what Paul Turner wrote about the tetralemma http://robertpirsig.org/Tetralemma.htm Then, to the propositions.first the positive which deals with perceived reality. Paul states:" The four formulations of propositions are traditionally presented in an order in which each view presents a progressively better expression of the middle way perspective whilst each is valid with qualification" Traditionally logic is predicated on truth in "be-ing" Paul interprets them as: x The self is real (conventionally true, i.e., it exists in a dependent reality along with everything else we derive from experience) -x The self is not real (ultimately true, i.e., it has no essence) Both x and -x The self is both real and not real (conventionally real but ultimately unreal) Neither x nor -x The self is neither real nor not real (neither ultimately real nor completely nonexistent) Ron: I think Paul and I are close in interpretation as it applies to expression. I interpret it: x (truth in be-ing) (objects exist as perceived) -x (truth in not be-ing) (nothing-ness exists as perceived) Both x and -x (truth in dichotomy, the proof of dualism) Neither x nor -x (dualism is ultimately an illusion of one essence) Ron: Then the negative tetralemma is employed. Paul states: "The negative tetralemma is the self destructing logic of the ultimate truth (the emptiness of emptiness!) which denies the validity of any philosophical assertion of any kind including that of the attribution of existence and non-existence to anything. The import of the negative tetralemma is that it ultimately denies its own validity as well as that of the doctrine of two truths which is itself designated a conventional truth." Ron: once we reduce dualism to perception we then follow. Not x (objects do not exist as perceived) Not -x (nothing-ness does not exist as perceived) Not (x and -x)(dualism does not exist as perceived) Not (neither x nor -x) (this illusion is not inherent in perception) in other words "oneness' is an illusion also. Ron: The conclusion is that all of this is a perception of experience which may not be described ultimately because descriptions are relational to perceptions. Universals, and ultimate truths are empty. Ultimate meaning is empty. "Meaning" only has meaning as it is related to perception. Paul states: To put this in the context of the MOQ, conventional truth applies to static reality and its difference from and relationship to Dynamic Quality. As such, the positive tetralemma would be used to express the reality of subjects, objects, and so on and their strictly static existence whilst acknowledging their lack of individual essence entailed by their dependence on Dynamic Quality. Ultimate truth thus applies to the pre-intellectual 'perspective' of Dynamic Quality. The negative tetralemma would be used to prevent any intellectual treatment of Dynamic Quality as a putative metaphysical 'entity' of which properties and attributes may be predicated. Ron: The way Paul describes the function sounds very much like being aware of the abstract/concrete distinction in language. In other words the neg ative tetralemma prevents one from making intellections based on concrete predication. Which is what keeps screwin with the MoQ. people tend to conceptualize DQ/SQ and Quality in terms of concrete entities. 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/
