[MD] The tetra lemma

[Ron Kulp]

Ron to dmb:
...Cause is dependant and relational and his logical tetralemma is used
to "logically" arrive at this conclusion.

dmb says:

Appreciate the effort, but I don't think I'm ready to handle this guy.
In this case, I really am clueless. But if it really is ultimately
"empty" of "true" meaning, then maybe cluelessness is a good thing. 

Ron:
Lets back up and start fresh, First let me point you to
what Paul Turner wrote about the tetralemma
http://robertpirsig.org/Tetralemma.htm

Then, to the propositions.first the positive which deals with 
perceived reality. Paul states:" The four formulations of propositions
are traditionally presented in an order in which each view presents a
progressively better expression of the middle way perspective whilst
each is valid with qualification"
Traditionally logic is predicated on truth in "be-ing"

Paul interprets them as:

x The self is real (conventionally true, i.e., it exists in a dependent
reality along with everything else we derive from experience)

-x The self is not real (ultimately true, i.e., it has no essence)

Both x and -x The self is both real and not real (conventionally real
but ultimately unreal)

Neither x nor -x The self is neither real nor not real (neither
ultimately real nor completely nonexistent)

Ron:
I think Paul and I are close in interpretation as it applies to
expression.
I interpret it:

x (truth in be-ing) (objects exist as perceived)

-x (truth in not be-ing) (nothing-ness exists as perceived)

Both x and -x (truth in dichotomy, the proof of dualism)

Neither x nor -x (dualism is ultimately an illusion of one essence)

Ron:
Then the negative tetralemma is employed.
Paul states:
"The negative tetralemma is the self destructing logic of the ultimate
truth (the emptiness of emptiness!) which denies the validity 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 it ultimately denies its own validity as well as that
of the doctrine of two truths which is itself designated a conventional
truth."

Ron:
once we reduce dualism to perception we then follow.

Not x (objects do not exist as perceived)

Not -x (nothing-ness does not exist as perceived)

Not (x and -x)(dualism does not exist as perceived)

Not (neither x nor -x) (this illusion is not inherent in perception)
in other words "oneness' is an illusion also.


Ron:
The conclusion is that all of this is a perception of experience
which may not be described ultimately because descriptions are
relational
to perceptions. 
Universals, and ultimate truths are empty. Ultimate meaning is empty.
"Meaning" only has meaning as it is related to perception.

Paul states:
To put this in the context of the MOQ, conventional truth applies to
static reality and its difference from and relationship to Dynamic
Quality. As such, the positive tetralemma would be used to express the
reality of subjects, objects, and so on and their strictly static
existence whilst acknowledging their lack of individual essence entailed
by their dependence on Dynamic Quality. Ultimate truth thus applies to
the pre-intellectual 'perspective' of Dynamic Quality. The negative
tetralemma would be used to prevent any intellectual treatment of
Dynamic Quality as a putative metaphysical 'entity' of which properties
and attributes may be predicated.

Ron:
The way Paul describes the function sounds very much like being aware
of the abstract/concrete distinction in language. In other words the neg
ative tetralemma prevents one from making intellections based on
concrete
predication. Which is what keeps screwin with the MoQ. people tend to
conceptualize DQ/SQ and Quality in terms of concrete entities.