Hi Tuukka, On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is my understanding that in Buddhism it's ok to use concepts whose > intension or extension is somewhat unclear. I believe the Diamond Sutra uses > "reality" or an analogous concept in a manner that is not semantically > clear, but is instead used as goodwilling trickery to make the reader > understand something that is difficult or impossible to understand by using > semantically precise language. > > I am very interested in finding an explanation on how this trickery works. > It seems to me that it is assumed and expected to work, but it is not > explained why it works. Providing an explanation is maybe not possible, but > that would only lead to the question: why exactly is it not possible?
[Mark] I am not sure if you are looking for a psychological answer or what. In this country we call "goodwilling trickery" rhetoric, and that is the nature of language. Now, how it works? Put enough words together and you get a picture. Such a picture depends on the rhetoric and the recipient of the words. Any explanation is further rhetoric, so, if you are looking for a truth, you are using the wrong tools. Putting your hand on a hot stove has got a lot more truth than the Diamond Sutra (I do like that Sutra, however). > > I am not sure where MoQ stands on this. Dynamic Quality seems like a concept > whose intension is clear, but whose extension cannot be determined. I'm > interested in getting an expert opinion on this. If someone ever wants to > build a bridge betweed western analytic philosophy and eastern philosophy or > MoQ, questions like this must be addressed. Basically, Buddhism and MoQ seem > to occasionally, and in a very serious manner, use language in a way that is > unheard of in the western tradition. [Mark] It is my understanding that a metaphysics is supposed to provide meaning to the individual. Would you call that an intension? For an expert opinion, I know this old man who lives at the top of a mountain. Following 4 days of climbing, you can meet him and ask him questions, don't forget to bring the present. If you want some nice music to go along with it, listen to: "In Held 'Twas I", by Procol Harem. The philosophy of Buddhism has the same intension as MoQ. There is plenty of language such as this in the Western tradition, a lot of it in Rock songs sung by long haired deviants (heh, heh). > > I don't know the state of very modern philosophy, but Wittgenstein asserted > famously that what can be said, can be said clearly, and what cannot be > said, must be passed over in silence. It might even be groundbreaking to > show that concepts, whose extension is unclear, can be used in a > constructive manner, as it seems to refute this Wittgenstein's idea. [Mark] Like Ian points out, Wittgenstein tried to eat his own tail, and realized its futility. He then went on to become a painter of words. > Thanks for the input, what I present is my opinion only, I am certainly no expert.> > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
