[MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn

[Marsha]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Kulp" <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn


>
>
>> Marsha:
>
> I would like to see better where Buddhism and the MOQ agree.  They both
> agree there is no SELF.  I see patterns as conventional entitites.  I
> don't
> think that DQ relates to emptiness.  Static patterns of value are empty
> and
> are totally the product of conceptual thought.  The four levels are the
> product of conceptual thought.  The MOQ is a product of conceptual
> thought.
> Empty.  Empty.  Empty.  Empty.   I don't think the net-of-jewels model
> fits
> into the MOQ.   This bother me.
>
> Ron:
>
> Hello Marsha,
> If the model fits your MoQ, there is no problem. The universals, as I
> see
> Them are keeping the mind open to change and open to a constant
> evolution
> Of your modes of understanding. Experience is a creative act like
> painting.
>
> I feel the MoQ is a radical metaphysic. If the net of jewels model
> Works and best explains your relation for you then who is anyone to
> Say you are wrong?
>
> Unless you were already expressing this, then I digress.
>
>

Greetings Ron,

I'm not concerned with being wrong.  I've been that plenty.  I wanting to 
see if it works.

If I view the four levels as all mere categories of concepts: inorganic, 
biological, social & intellectual, rather then independent entities, I think 
the net-of-jewels model works very well.  But I'm never quite sure there's a 
consensus concerning what exactly is in those levels especially inorganic 
and biological.  To me it has to be all conceptual.  I think that RMP has 
stated that the MoQ is an intellectual-static-pattern-of-value.  If that's 
the case, I think he would agree that all within the levels is conceptual. 
What are, for instance, dogs?  Is there anything outside of concept there? 
(Actually, this is where the opposite-from-non-dog fits very well.)  The 
meaning can be very broad or very narrow, depending on w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r. 
Object?  Independent entity?  Empty!!!

Curious.  What do you mean by the MoQ being a radical metaphysics?  As 
opposed to being an ordinary or common metaphysics?  I think there are very 
few who would _equate_ religion and metaphysics, so what do you mean.

Marsha