That's horrible my thoughts go out To John and his family.
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:21 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ant, > > Good to hear from you! For those who haven't heard, our friend John > suffered a fall while trimming trees. He broke both wrists as well as > his neck and what sounds even more dire, when they did the scans on > his head they discovered a brain tumor. From what I understand he is > doing as well as can be expected under the circumstances and hopefully > (at least for me) we'll see him back here soon. > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Dan, John C and all! >> >> Well man... it was a dreadful flight so honey disconnect the phone... > > Been away so long I hardly knew the place.... > >> >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 5:04 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> Jc: It has taken me a while, but I think I understand better what >>>> James meant by immediate experience. One thing for sure, immediate >>>> experience requires Radical Empiricism, as DQ requires the MOQ. But >>>> more on that later. >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> Dynamic Quality and immediate experience are both intellectual terms >>>> pointing to that which cannot be quantified. The terms themselves may >>>> require explanations, however. >>> Jc: That's right. All terms only have meaning to the extent that >>> they've been fully explained. Full explanation is the business of the >>> meta-physician. >> >> Dan replied July 15th: >> >> I do not believe there can ever be a full explanation of Dynamic >> Quality and experience. >> >> Ant comments: >> >> Well Pirsig says somewhere (in LILA, chapter 9 probably) that the MOQ is >> actually a contradiction in terms because it claims to be a metaphysics >> (which as John points out should ideally define all the terms it uses though >> I doubt any term can be FULLY explained to exhausation) but with a central >> undefined term. As we know Bob calls this "Dynamic Quality" but "The Tao" >> or "No-thingness" or even his near final "Unpatterned Quality" (as opposed >> to "Patterned Quality") are thought to be equivalents by him and such MOQ >> scholars such as myself. > > Dan: > Sure... so far as intellectual terms pointing at the ineffable. > >> Ant: >> If you read a book such as John Blofeld's fascinating account ("Taoist >> Mystery & Magic" originally published in 1973) of his time as an >> English-Chinese translator during the 1930s when he visited all these >> ancient Chinese Taoist monasteries (before the 1948 "Uncultural Revolution" >> destroyed most of them and the wisdom contained within, you can begin to >> understand why Pirsig and myself think this is the case. Pirsig thought the >> latter book pointed out some great mystic truths but you will have to read >> it for yourself to see why. > > Dan: > Sounds worth a read. I will order it as soon as I scrape together a few > dollars. > >> Ant: >> 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. > > Dan: > I think that would depend upon how one defines 'the world of everyday > affairs.' If all static patterns refer to that, then the tetralemma is > also part of the world of everyday affairs. It is a collection of > intellectual quality patterns... what else could it be? > >> Ant: >> As such, the MOQ (unlike a metaphysics based on just on syllogistic logic) >> can incorporate Dynamic Quality (or at least "point to it") within its >> system. Paul Turner's paper about the Tetralemma explains this in more >> detail: >> >> "Logic is a set of rules that define valid inference. The validity of >> inference provided by syllogistic logic and its descendants is based on an >> assumption that propositions and the relationships between them are made and >> inferred in one context, whether this is tacit or stated within a premise. >> Because the rules of inference defined by the syllogism operate within a >> single context, contradictory propositions cannot be contained within a >> single structure of thought without being illogical." > > Dan: > Right. That is on account of the underlying assumptions set forth... > sort of like researchers measuring the speed of light using the > assumption that the light they are measuring is really there and not a > representation of light, which of course it is. > > I think this is a trap most Western philosophers fall into even > inadvertently when they begin reading the old 'masters,' even those in > the East. They are apt to overlay the underlying assumptions that > objects are 'out there' just waiting to be observed by an astute > 'subject.' > > If one sees past that roadblock, then often times they swing too far > the other way. They end up delving into the esoteric as if there is > some mysterious facet of reality that is hidden from the purview of > all but the insightful. > > The MOQ starts with experience. That in itself is a stroke of genius > so profound most everyone overlooks it in a mad scramble to understand > what the MOQ 'really' means. > >> Ant: >> "The tetralemma (catuskoti) provides alternative rules of valid inference. >> The tetralemma is a logical formulation of the dual context of the Buddhist >> principle of “two truths,” or “two worlds.” Because the rules of inference >> defined by the tetralemma operate across two contexts, contradictory >> propositions can be contained within a single structure of thought without >> being illogical." > > Dan: > Exactly... and be doing so it opens up a more expansive way of > viewing/ordering reality as we know it. > >> Ant: >> The two truths of Buddhism are typically designated “conventional” and >> “ultimate” or alternatively they are described as “the world of everyday >> affairs” and “the world of the Buddhas.” >> >> Conventional truth applies to facts about the everyday reality of things, >> people and events. It is designated conventional in the sense of being the >> product of human interests and dispositions and does not correspond to >> anything independently or inherently true. Syllogistic logic works very >> well for justifying beliefs in the context of conventional truth. > > Dan: > The logic of the tetralemma works better to justify beliefs in the > context of conventional truth... it is simply not familiar to most > Westerners. > >> Ant: >> Ultimate truth applies to the world of the Buddhas > > Dan: > Ultimate truth/the world of the Buddhas refers to immediate > experience, or simply experience for those who know... Dynamic Quality > in terms of the MOQ. That is where it all begins. Without that > foundation, anyone seeking to further their knowledge about the MOQ or > about life in general will falter and fall by the wayside, trapped in > their own confusion. > > Ant: >> and is inexpressible in the sense that, in the absence of convention, there >> is no candidate for predication, including the ascription of >> existence/non-existence itself. Significantly, the conventional and >> ultimate truths have the same consequence – nothing can be said to exist by >> virtue of its own essence. Syllogistic logic has no meaning with respect to >> ultimate truth. > > Dan: > Nor dos the logic of the tetralemma. > >> Ant: >> The tetralemma comprises the inferred relationship of four propositions and >> is expressed positively or negatively*. Where p is any proposition and ¬p >> is its negation, a positive tetralemma takes the form of: >> >> >> p >> p >> ¬p >> Not p >> p & ¬p >> Both p & not p >> ¬(p V ¬p) >> Neither p nor not p >> >> >> The positive tetralemma is an expression of the conventional validity of the >> two truths. The positive import of the two truths is that whilst it is >> stated that nothing is inherently real, i.e., nothing exists by virtue of >> its own independent essence, the familiar everyday world is, nonetheless, >> conventionally real and exists in a way which does not contradict >> experience. With this acceptance of conventional truth we are not left with >> an absurd conception of reality in which nothing exists in any sense >> whatsoever. Thus the extreme standpoints of (naïve or philosophical) >> reification and nihilism are repudiated in favour of a “middle way.” >> >> The positive tetralemma operates as follows. The truth of the first >> proposition can and should be subject to the syllogistic rules of inference, >> then, from any given proposition which is true of the conventional world, >> the three remaining propositions are validly inferred. >> >> e.g.: >> >> The self is real (conventionally real, i.e., it exists in a dependent >> reality along with everything else we derive from experience) >> The self is not real (ultimately unreal, i.e., it has no essence) >> The self is both real and not real (conventionally real but ultimately >> unreal) >> The self is neither real nor not real (neither ultimately real nor >> completely nonexistent) >> >> ----CUT---- >> >> >> A negative tetralemma takes the form of: >> >> >> ¬p >> Not p >> ¬(¬p) >> Not not p >> ¬(p & ¬p) >> Not (p & not p) >> ¬(¬(p V ¬p)) >> Not (neither p nor not p) >> >> >> The negative tetralemma is an expression of the self-negating “logic” of the >> ultimate truth (the emptiness of emptiness!) which denies the validity and >> inference of any philosophical assertion of any kind including that of the >> attribution of existence and non-existence to anything. The import of the >> negative tetralemma is that, unlike its positive counterpart, it denies the >> validity of the doctrine of two truths which, by comforming to logic, is >> itself designated a conventional truth. The negative tetralemma can be seen >> as a paradoxically logical formulation of the inapplicability of logic to >> whatever proposition it is applied, insofar as that proposition is related >> to the world of the Buddhas. >> >> An example of the negative tetralemma as applied to nirvāna: >> >> It is not the case that nirvāna exists >> It is not the case that nirvāna does not exist >> It is not the case that nirvāna both exists and does not exist >> It is not the case that nirvāna neither exists nor does not exist >> >> >> To put all of this in the context of the MOQ, conventional truth, the world >> of everyday affairs, applies to static reality and its difference from and >> relationship to Dynamic Quality. As such, the positive tetralemma would be >> used to express, in a logical way, the reality of subjects, objects, and so >> on and their strictly static existence whilst acknowledging their >> contradictory “unreality”, i.e., their lack of individual essence, that is >> entailed by their dependence on Dynamic Quality. Ultimate truth, the world >> of Buddhas, thus applies to the preintellectual “context” of Dynamic >> Quality. The negative tetralemma would be used to prevent any logical >> treatment of Dynamic Quality as a putative metaphysical “entity” of which >> properties and attributes may be predicated. > >> ( robertpirsig.org/Tetralemma.htm ) > > Dan: > It is worth noting again that the tetralemma (both positive and > negative), while expressing the reality/unreality of objects and > subjects as well as preventing the logical treatment of Dynamic > Quality, is itself static quality. > > Thank you, > > Dan > > http://www.danglover.com > 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
