> Dan:
> As I said (repeated ad nauseum) to Harding, there is no enlightenment. It
> is only those who have yet to climb the mountain that the mountain exists.
> Once at the top, one can see there never was any mountain at all. Going
> back down into the valley the mountain exists once again but only as an
> analogy.
>
> [Ron]
> Well thats the perspective in which the Pragmatic theory of truth
> opperates on
> in terms of meaningful analogies, yet what is harped apon (ad nauseum)
> in typical reactionary style is to paint that Pragmatic theory of truth as
> possesive of the climber who has yet to climb the mountain and attacked
> on those grounds. Attacking it on those grounds is not to understand
> the use and meaning of the Pragmatic theory of truth.
>

Dan:
I am not attacking anything here. Enlightenment as in 180° zen has a
significance to those whose goal is to achieve said enlightenment. The
Gateless Gate is an analogy used to demonstrate this non-existence. Once
the student passes through the gate they realize the gate was never there
at all. In fact, enlightenment is sometimes likened to the realization of
impermanence.

Moving on, from what I understand of the pragmatic theory of truth, it is
typical of correspondence theories in that value is found in the
relationships between symbolic representations and objective states of
reality. The MOQ sees truth as high quality intellectual patterns of value.
It is a good idea to believe these intellectual patterns correspond to
reality but it is only an idea.

I think this is a stumbling stone for many folk when it comes to the MOQ.
They tend to liken intellectual patterns to corresponding objective
realities rather than to the idea of those realities being beyond our
purview.

[Ron responds]
Typicaly the Pragmatic theory of truth is understood as a reaction against 
correspondence
theory, value is found as a result of a process of inquirey rather than 
relationships between
symbolic representations and objective states of reality. It is a means of 
clarifying thoughts.
If anything, this has also been a stumbling block for many when they confuse 
the two and 
apply MoQ's attack on corresponence theory as an attack on all theories of 
truth.
 
It is tantamount to equating intellect with SOM. Which is what I often 
understand you
as supporting.
 
 
 
 
.
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

Reply via email to