From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 11:10:43 BST
Scott,
>[Scott said]>....So while Magliola does not use the word
>>'universal', the function of that word is there in the phrase "connected
>>experience" and "dependently arisen".
>
>Paul said: Then let's use those words instead.
>
>Scott:
>I think it is advisable to keep in mind that those (Magliola's) words are
>substitutes for 'universal'
Paul: Can you show me where this is stated?
>>Scott said:
>...."Universal" and
>>"particular" are just more words to be used to express a contradictory
>>identity -- other equivalent words are "signified" and "signifier",
>>"concept" and "speech act", "type" and "token", and so on. My point is
>that
>>we can't do without some such pair if we want to philosophically examine
>>the
>>nature of reality.
>
>Paul said: Again, I think dependently originated static patterns does the
>trick
>whenever you feel the need to bring in 'universal' and 'particular'.
>
>Scott:
>But I don't see particulars in SPOV, just universals, so how does it do the
>trick?
Paul: Because it repudiates the universal/particular distinction whilst
allowing us to talk about 'things'.
>Paul said: That's why I put 'originating factor' in scare quotes, to do
>away
>with it once I'd used it to link to the Magliola quote. I think DQ is
>privileged only to the extent that differance and sunyata are by Derrida
>and
>Nagarjuna respectively.
>
>Scott:
>Ok. I can agree that a temporary privileging is useful for those who only
>know of the conventional view. But it is harmful if used as a basis for
>building a metaphysics.
Paul: Possibly. But perhaps metaphysics inevitably operates purely as
samvrti-satya. This provides a neat 'solution' to Pirsig's self-confessed
contradiction:
"Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of definition and since Quality
is essentially outside definition, this means that a "Metaphysics of
Quality" is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity."
[LILA, p73]
The MOQ is justified from the perspective of samvrti-satya whereas no
metaphysics may be justified from the perspective of paramartha-satya.
>Paul said: That's interesting, although there is still a distinction
>between the
>metaphysics and what the metaphysics is about in that it is, as you say,
>"an
>example" and not, of course, the whole thing; kind of like a fractal of the
>ubiquitous process of reality.
>
>Scott:
>I like that analogy.
Paul: Thanks. I've enjoyed this discussion, and I am grateful for the
Magliola reference.
Regards
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 16 2005 - 12:07:51 BST