[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Greetings, Ham, and thanks.

But I didn't speak of intentions. I used the word "intension", which is 
a different thing. Wikipedia says something about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intension
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_%28semantics%29

Intension and extension are rather clearly defined concepts known at 
least since the times of Bertrand Russell, so I did not invent them, and 
the relation between them is very well recognized.

It is my understanding that in Buddhism it's ok to use concepts whose 
intension or extension is somewhat unclear. I believe the Diamond Sutra 
uses "reality" or an analogous concept in a manner that is not 
semantically clear, but is instead used as goodwilling trickery to make 
the reader understand something that is difficult or impossible to 
understand by using semantically precise language.

I am very interested in finding an explanation on how this trickery 
works. It seems to me that it is assumed and expected to work, but it is 
not explained why it works. Providing an explanation is maybe not 
possible, but that would only lead to the question: why exactly is it 
not possible?

I am not sure where MoQ stands on this. Dynamic Quality seems like a 
concept whose intension is clear, but whose extension cannot be 
determined. I'm interested in getting an expert opinion on this. If 
someone ever wants to build a bridge betweed western analytic philosophy 
and eastern philosophy or MoQ, questions like this must be addressed. 
Basically, Buddhism and MoQ seem to occasionally, and in a very serious 
manner, use language in a way that is unheard of in the western tradition.

I don't know the state of very modern philosophy, but Wittgenstein 
asserted famously that what can be said, can be said clearly, and what 
cannot be said, must be passed over in silence. It might even be 
groundbreaking to show that concepts, whose extension is unclear, can be 
used in a constructive manner, as it seems to refute this Wittgenstein's 
idea.

-Tuukka




22.3.2011 6:11, Ham Priday kirjoitti:
>
> Greetings, Tuukka --
>
> Welcome to the forum.
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:04 PM, "Tuukka Virtaperko" 
> <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org> wrote:
>
>> Ham:
>>
>> You seem to be missing a point that's related to intensions and 
>> extensions. Let's take the concept of squares as an example. The 
>> intension of this object is the definition of squares, ie.
>> "all numbers that equal an integer multiplied by itself". The
>> extension of this object is "1,4,9,16,25..."
>>
>> You seem to be attempting to use the concept of "reality" as a
>> reference to the extension of "reality". What is the intension of
>> this concept?
>>
>> Perhaps more poetically put: If reality is not a term at all, how can 
>> you use it as a term?
>
> I have no "hidden agenda".  Reality is a valid term, but as I have 
> often pointed out it, it is defined differently by empiricists and 
> philosophers, respectively.  Accordingly, I make a distinction between 
> "existential reality" and "ultimate reality".  The former defines the 
> plualistic universe and its finite components as experienced, the 
> latter is the uncreated source or ground of all that is.
>
> However, I don't get your point because I don't see a relation between 
> "intention" and "extension".  Although the phrase "by extension" 
> suggests that a given concept can apply to more than one event or 
> process, you didn't use that phrase.  Instead you tried to relate two 
> words that don't even share a common prefix.  My point to Mark was 
> that intent always implies an "intender" or subjective agent with a 
> goal or purpose.  Thus, when you say "the intention of this object", 
> what you really mean is: it is YOUR intention to use this object as an 
> example that relates the two words.
>
> Your example doesn't work for me.  But if, indeed, I am "missing 
> something" here, I'm sure that Mark or somebody else will hasten to 
> explain what it is.
>
> Nice to meet you, Tuukka, and thanks for your interest,
> Ham
>
> 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
>