David Harding quoted Robert Pirsig July 28th:
"Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity." (LILA, Chapter 5) David, Again, with reference to Paul Turner’s Tetralemma paper, it’s quite evident that the MOQ is only “a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity” when using Aristotlean, syllogistic logic. From the viewpoint of the Tetralemma, there is nothing illogical about the MOQ! I have recently been reading “What the Buddha Thought” a text by Richard Gombrich, a former student of Walpola Rahula and a leading Buddhist scholar (at least in the UK). (http://www.amazon.com/Buddha-Thought-Buddhist-Studies-Monographs/dp/1845536126) Even in Gombrich’s otherwise fine scholarly work which corrects quite a few modern misapprehensions about “what the Buddha thought” there is no implicit or explicit reference to the Tetralemma. Now, without the actual logic that the Buddha used (even if it wasn’t called the Tetralemma in his day – that is what he used in practice) I don't think you can conclusively (or fully) deal with misapprehensions of certain Buddhist ideas (such as that of the self). As Paul Turner illustrates (using the positive Tetralemma) the self is only considered “not real” from the MOQ's “World of the Buddhas”/”Dynamic” perspective: “The self is real (i.e., it exists in static reality along with everything else we derive from experience). The self is not real (from a Dynamic perspective). The self is both real and not real (it is real from a static perspective but not from a Dynamic perspective). The self is neither real nor not real (neither ultimately real from a Dynamic perspective nor completely non-existent from a static perspective).” (http://robertpirsig.org/Tetralemma.htm) As far as I can see, the Tetralemma reflects the Buddhist notion of the Middle Way. To see the self as real OR as not real is equally incorrect! Syllogistic logic just can’t handle such a notion so, strictly speaking, it is inadequate to discuss the metaphysical ideas of the Buddha or, for that matter, of Robert Pirsig! David Harding then stated July 28th: “If we are to ever discuss metaphysics we have to 'pretend' that these static qualities existed before we ever encountered them.” Ant McWatt comments: David, I rather like the phrase “pretend” here though “Context 2 of the MOQ” (to use Paul’s terminology) is a little more than just pretending! If I’m having critical surgery, I don’t want the surgeons just to be pretending; I want them to be – at the very least – assuming that their surgical procedures will work in practice i.e. that the surgeon/s will have previous assumptions (or postulations) that have been previously seen to work. David Harding then continued July 28th: “This was the whole point of Paul Turners two contexts. In the second context static quality exists before we encounter it. In context one (which is exclusively what [Marsha is] interested in) static quality does not exist before we encounter it. DMB is naturally trying to talk to you from context two because in order to have an intellectual discussion we must assume that static quality exists before we encounter it - you're clearly refusing to make this assumption - can you not see how this can be construed by DMB as being 'anti-intellectual'?” Ant McWatt comments: David, I think you need both the Two Contexts that Paul was talking about to fully understand and to fully apply the MOQ. The same goes for Buddhism or any other philosophy that uses Tetralemmic logic. If you confine yourself to Context 1 then you going to be paralysed into no-action or some sort of relativism where the static patterns are considered to have equal value/no-value; if you confine yourself just to Context 2, then you’re going to start making the error that the MOQ is stating something absolute about the world. The MOQ is just a “working postulation” and I think this what the Two Contexts is designed to help illustrate. Best wishes, Anthony . 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
