[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[Ham Priday]

Hi Tuukka --


> 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.

Maybe by logicians and linguists, but not by me.  Thanks, anyway, for the 
clarification.  I mistook the word "intension" for an incorrect spelling of 
"intention".  (You'll have to admit it's confusing.)

Based on your Wiki references, I assume the word signifies "intended 
meaning" with respect to what follows, which again relates to the "intent" 
of the person who wrote the premise or assertion..
> 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 would chalk it up to obfuscation on the part of an author who is incapable 
or unwilling to explicate his concept in comprehensible fashion.  There are 
many poetic passages in biblical scripture whose exact meaning is not clear, 
leaving the "intension" a matter of faith for the believer.  The same is 
true of Buddhistic koans and other "mind splitting" linguistic devices. 
When I can't fathom a phrase or admonition in a literary exposition, and no 
analogies are provided, I simply ignore it and search for another author's 
explanation.  (Usually it's not worth my time.)

I don't know if your query was directed to me because you've found my my 
writing obtuse.  This criticism has been thrown at me more than once. 
Although I try to articulate my concepts as clearly and cogently as 
possible, I've noted a "conceptual gap" in my dialogue with the Pirsigians 
which I can only attribute to their philosophical indoctrination.  What it 
comes down to is that they not only won't accept alternative views, they 
won't even attempt to conceptualize them.  When someone refuses to 
acknowledge the "subjective self", for example, or that the realization of 
Value requires a conscious agent, trying to explain my ontology is like 
running into a stone wall.

The MoQists, in particular, have a language of their own in which certain 
terms have a specal meaning ('intension'?)   'Extend' that meaning at your 
own risk, for it will surely cause resentment.  But I suppose that's the 
burden we all have to deal with when traveling in foreign territory.

Nice to talk to you, Tuukka.  (Whar's the derivation of that name, by the 
way?)

Essentially yours,
Ham