[MD] The tetra lemma

[Ron Kulp]

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

dmb says:
Thanks. I hadn't looked at that in at least a couple years. I asked Paul
Turner to explain it back then and was totally perplexed. At one point
he gave up and so I never did figure out what was going on. I'm not sure
if it was you or Paul who said, "traditionally logic is predicated on
truth in 'be-ing'". I have no idea what that means. What is "truth in
be-ing" and how is logic predicated on it?

Ron:
Aristotle predicated "truth" as existent. If one can sense it with the
traditional 5 senses then it exists and "is". Analytic Logic therefore
ties statements to things that exist and are verifiable by the senses as
"true"
statements. Therefore concrete nouns are verifiable while abstract nouns
are not. Happiness is not verifiable but a rock is. Think of a court
case,
the prosecution uses analytics to make a solid argument by tying
physical
evidence to a particular action by a specific person.

Dmb:
 Paul says, "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" . Here again, the point seem to
be in defeating an idea that I just can't wrap my heard around. I
remember asking Paul repeatedly, what the heck is an essence? In both
cases, when I go on a web search to investigate "truth in being" or
"essences" I mostly find a lot of theology and other kinds of God talk.
I keep getting the feeling that this t
 etralemma is meant to defeat an entirely fake problem. I mean, it seems
to be aimed at a problem that I find completely meaningless.

Ron:
It's tied up in god talk because Christianity is built on analytic.
try looking up Aristotle's metaphysic or even ontology itself.
It, as MoQ, is designed to defeat SOM. Essence in the old sense
meant that objects possessed the qualities we perceive, a ball
possess the shape of the sphere and the color red. It possess
hardness , it possess the essence of the quality we perceive.

Dmb:
I've asked anybody who might plausibly know, teachers, fellow students,
MOQers. What do you mean by "essence"? So far none of the answers have
made a lick of sense to me. Even the simple word "being" has me baffled.
If it means "existence", then we are talking about a category that
literal includes everything that is. That strikes me a useless category.
In that sense, "being" means nothing in particular and everything in
general.

Ron:
Think of it as objecthood. As isolated entities in a vacuum.

Dmb:
 I think Pirsig says something like, "a thing that cannot be
distinguished from anything else has no value and does not exist." When
we add these things together and start talking about the essence of
being, I just roll my eyes and wonder how this nonsense ever got
started. This has been going on for years now, so don't feel like you've
failed to explain it properly. Clearly, its my problem.

Ron:

I am starting at the foundations of SOM and what makes it work.
you seem to be looking at this from a MoQ perspective which will
confuse the issue. I have every confidence we can come to a mutual
understanding.