Ooops, the previous post ha a bit of the MoQ Textbook quote missing...
Hi Ron, Steve & dmb,
I'm not sure if this falls into your mention/use distinction, but I've always
thought of the MoQ in two ways: The MoQ as the social/intellectual explanation
that RMP has given us in ZAMM, LILA and various other letters and papers, and
as the MoQ = REALITY = QUALITY(unpatterned experience(DQ)/patterned
experience(sq)). I see a parallel in Buddhism in the doctrine of the Two
Truths. From Wiki:
"The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths differentiates between
two levels of truth (Sanskrit: satya) in Buddhist discourse: a "relative"
or commonsense truth (Pāli: sammuti sacca), and an "ultimate" or
absolute, spiritual truth (Pāli: paramattha sacca)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths
From the MoQ textbook:
"Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types
of truth; the ‘static’ conventional truth (_sammuti-sacca_) and the
'Dynamic' ultimate truth (_paramattha-sacca_).
Thanks,
Marsha
On Oct 20, 2011, at 11:32 AM, david buchanan wrote:
>
> Ron wrote to Steve:
> The fact that you reference Bo for an arguement, sigh, you really lost me.
> That guy is about as clueless as they come..sorry.
>
>
>
> Steve replied:
> You've misunderstood my intention. I wasn't making an argument let alone
> using Bo's words to help make one for me. I was referencing Bo to highlight a
> problem that most of us have with Bo's thinking and asking if anyone has
> enough knowledge of the use-mention distinction to say whether that is a good
> way to describe the problem.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> I'd say the mention/use distinction is not relevant to Bo's problem.
>
>
> It's a handy distinction if you're an analytic philosopher because their task
> is to analyze language and they have to use language to do that. The liar's
> paradox, for example, is a case of using language while at the same time
> making a claim about that language use; "Everything I say is a lie." The
> paradox is produced by the sentence's ability to preform at two levels
> simultaneously. But normally it's not at all a big deal. Sometimes we talk
> and sometimes we talk about talking. Analytic philosophers talk about talking
> as a profession so they might make good use of the distinction in subtle
> ways, but I think most people can easily understand the difference.
>
>
>
> This distinction cannot in any way be equated with the MOQ's distinction
> between concepts and reality, however. Since the primary empirical reality is
> pre-verbal and pre-conceptual, there is as yet no term to use or mention.
> Reality (DQ) is outside of language but the mention/use distinction is
> entirely within language, is entirely conceptual. The MOQ and analytic
> philosophy go together like peanut butter and jealousy. There's your category
> error.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
