[MD] chariotness

[Carl Thames]

Thanks for answering.  At what point does the "meta" apply?  That's the 
heart of the question, I think.  Doesn't "metaphysics" of quality then 
become nonsensical?  It either has a quality or it doesn't.  Maybe I'm 
drawing too fine a line here, but I don't see the distinction.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] chariotness


>
> Greetings,
>
> Seems to me that 'chair' or 'chariot' is a mere name given to pragmatic 
> value that tends to persist and change in a predictable pattern.
>
> imho
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2011, at 6:31 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 9. Let us first consider the validity of the argument. If a chariot is 
>> taken to pieces, and a man is then shown the pieces one by one, each time 
>> with the question 'Is this a chariot?', it is obvious that he will always 
>> say no. And if these pieces are gathered together in a heap, and he is 
>> shown the heap, then also he will say that there is no chariot. If, 
>> finally, he is asked whether apart from these pieces he sees any chariot, 
>> he will still say no. But suppose now that he is shown these pieces 
>> assembled together in such a way that the assemblage can be used for 
>> conveying a man from place to place; when he is asked he will undoubtedly 
>> assert that there is a chariot, that the chariot exists. According to the 
>> argument, the man was speaking in the conventional sense when he asserted 
>> the existence of the chariot, and in the highestsense when he denied it. 
>> But, clearly enough, the man (who has had no training in such subtleties) 
>> is using ordinary conventional language throughout; and the reason for 
>> the difference between his two statements is to be found in the fact that 
>> on one occasion he was shown a chariot and on the others he was not. If a 
>> chariot is taken to pieces (even in imagination) it ceases to be a 
>> chariot; for a chariot is, precisely, a vehicle, and a heap of components 
>> is not a vehicle -- it is a heap of components. (If the man is shown the 
>> heap of components and asked 'Is this a heap of components?', he will say 
>> yes.) In other words, a chariot is most certainly an assemblage of parts, 
>> but it is an assemblage of parts in a particular functional arrangement, 
>> and to alter this arrangement is to destroy the chariot. It is no great 
>> wonder that a chariot cannot be found if we have taken the precaution of 
>> destroying it before starting to look for it. If a man sees a chariot in 
>> working order and says 'In the highest sense there is no chariot; for it 
>> is a mere assemblage of parts', all he is saying is 'It is possible to 
>> take this chariot to pieces and to gather them in a heap; and when this 
>> is done there will no longer be a chariot'. The argument, then, does not 
>> show the non-existence of the chariot; at best it merely asserts that an 
>> existing chariot can be destroyed. And when it is applied to an 
>> individual (i.e. a set of pañcakkhandhá) it is even less valid; for not 
>> only does it not show the non-existence of the individual, but since the 
>> functional arrangement of the pañcakkhandhá cannot be altered, even in 
>> imagination, it asserts an impossibility, that an existing individual can 
>> be destroyed. As applied to an individual (or a creature) the argument 
>> runs into contradiction; and to say of an individual 'In the highest 
>> sense there is no individual; for it is a mere asemblage of khandhá' is 
>> to be unintelligible.
>>
>> http://www.nanavira.110mb.com/paramsac.htm
>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>>
>> 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/md/archives.html
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3369 - Release Date: 01/09/11
>