[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 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn


>
> 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!!!
>
> Ron:
> I think you are on it. A dog is a pattern of qualia and conceptual
> understanding to form differing levels of experience. This of course is
> An intellectual concept but it explains a relationship which is
> verifiable
> With experience.
>
> Marsha:
> 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.
>
> Ron:
> What I mean is that language, because it is a cultural universal,
> naturally
> Evokes concepts of universals. Everyone's experience is unique which the
>
> Universality of language renders normative. I use the term Radical
> In the same context that William James termed Radical empiricism
> Which excludes nothing in the formulation of its value sets basing
> Meaning in individual contexts of truth finding and forming concepts.
> In other words it gives you
> The tools to construct your own metaphysic of one, which conflicts
> With the universality of the language we use to talk about it.
> There is a paradigm shift in the language we use to discuss MoQ.
> We begin to mix abstract and concrete distinctions which conflict
> in meaning when forming whole concepts.
> When we experience a dog we experience it inorganically organically
> Socially and intellectually. What we can say about or conceive of the
> experience is limited intellectually. So when we begin to speak
> abstractly
> About concrete concepts, and concretely about the abstract, things get
> funky when constructing whole understandings. That is why I say that it
> Increases understanding by being aware of how this linguistic
> Tool functions in our conversations and conceptual theories.
>
> When we speak concretely we take on a "gods eye" conceptual
> understanding
> Of universality. Which conflicts with the abstract reference we use
> To describe a particular experience.
>
> In this fashion, , experience is dynamic, how we conceptualize it is
> static.
> As a concrete universal concept.
> We now pick up our DQ/SQ linguistic tool and apply it to the paradigm of
> static concrete universal levels. Social and intellectual are more
> dynamic
> Than organic and inorganic when speaking concretely or statically.
>
> This way we can speak of dynamic patterns as static concepts.
>
> Which was what all the fuss was about with Bo, it rendered SOL
> Superfluous. Some think I am full of it, but as of yet no one
> Is able to demonstrate why they think that, but it does open
> Up dynamic dialog without conflicting with the in-definability
> Of the concrete aspect of Dynamic Quality.
> It explains a lot and brings us together. What disappointed me
> Was Bo could talk a good game but he couldn't demonstrate
> A damn thing.
>
>
>
> Like you, it's gotta work for me.
>
>
>

Hi Ron,

I didn't mean 'work for me'.  What needs to work for me is more like SA's 
trees.  I'm trying to further my understanding of the MOQ by playing it 
against my understanding of Buddhism, and vice versa.  My hopes are that 
both will advance.  But doing this on my own is risky because I may be far 
off track with both of them, or put myself far off track.   And why, I 
wouldn't mind being challenged.

Marsha