Ron, Amazingly, yes they make logical sense, and they are joyful statements of truth. I still feel a bit fragile, though, and afraid I will forget.
Marsha Marsha, me too. At least now it is a point we may return to. -Ron > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:46 AM > Subject: [MD] The tetra lemma > > >> >> >> 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/ > 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/ > 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/ 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/ 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/
