Dave, I guess what I'm saying is that In the flow if experience ideas Like ultimate ontological status Seem to be rationalized. Empirically speaking. In other words it seems to me to Be a superfluous assertion.
-Ron Thanks for pointing me at that paper > On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:03 PM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ant McWatt wrote: > > This is going to lose some people here (and no doubt elsewhere!) but one of > the primary reasons that the MOQ can be so difficult to pin down for a > traditional Western intellectual is its basis on the logic of the Tetralemma, > the four pronged logic that East Asian philosophies (certainly Buddhist and > Taoist traditions) use rather than the syllogistic logic of Aristotle's which > is used by nearly every Western philosopher that you can read today. The > latter are still largely unaware that East Asian logic can operate in two > contradictory contexts while syllogistic logic can operate (or presumes) that > there is only one. I guess you call the latter "the world of everyday > affairs" and is what all the static quality patterns in the MOQ refer to. > > > > Ron replied: > > I disagree, I maintain that The basis of MOQ Rests on the idea "that which > does Not have value, does not exist" Which I believe corresponds with > Aristotle, "the question does not lay Apon whether or not something is or Is > not, rather, it rests on whether or not it has meaning" Pragmatically > speaking. > > > dmb says: > I think there is no need to disagree, Ron, because these are not mutually > exclusive ideas. If I understand it, Pirsig's statement ("that which does not > have value, does not exist") can be understood in terms of the two contexts > described by Ant (conventional static realities and the "ultimate" > realities). Conventional realities (static quality) come into existence > because they have value and the ultimate reality (DQ) is the source of that > value. They exist in a relationship of continual becoming, which we like to > think of as an ongoing evolutionary process. Because the static forms have a > limited life span and are secondary to the ultimate reality, we say they have > no essential being or no primary ontological status. > I'm not sure how helpful it is to explain this with four-pronged logic, > however. Unless the notion of two contexts is grasped first, in fact, it's > not going to make much sense at all. Fortunately, Paul wrote a great paper > explaining some of the differences and distinctions between the two contexts. > It unpacks what the tetralemma condenses, so to speak. Somebody will remember > the title and I'll bet it posted on Ant's website. > > > > > > > > > > > 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
