[MD] The tetra lemma

[Ron Kulp]

Ron,

Amazingly, yes they make logical sense, and they are joyful statements
of 
truth.   I still feel a bit fragile, though, and afraid I will forget.


Marsha

Marsha,
me too. At least now it is a point we may return to.

-Ron







>
>
> ----- 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/
> 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/