[MD] The tetra lemma

[Ron Kulp]

Aryaratnakarasutras says:

Whatever is empty and cannot be perceived
Is like the tracks of a bird in the expanse of the sky  
 
But I also like this by Aryadeva:

Perception through conception is bondage.
That is what is negated here.

Ron:
These statements make perfect 
"logical" sense now, don't they?
they are not mystical incomprehensible
Koans they are statements of truth.




Marsha




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Kulp" <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:46 AM
Subject: [MD] The tetra lemma


> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/