dave,
> And the larger point here, in case you missed it, is that we cannot have > any kind of successful communication without a certain stability of meaning. > John: I agree completely. But then I'd assume that's too obvious to be missed. I notice tho, that you missed completely my point about the definition of static that you are using, describes nothing in the real world of experience. So isn't that kind of a futile term to use? dmb: > And in this case we are talking about the MOQ first distinction. Who could > possibly deny that it is bad to be confused about these central terms? Who > thinks it's helpful or useful to use definitions that are opposite from the > one commonly used by Pirsig, James and english dictionaries? > > John: Methinkest thou barkest vociferously up the wrong tree. We're not debating the English definition of the word static - or at least I'm not - I'm debating the philosophic validity of absolutizing the concept when there is nothing conceivably static. "relatively static" is about as close to a useful philosophic concept as you can get. dmb: > Like I said, this doesn't even rise to the level of a philosophical > discussion. John: True dat! Sigh. And one wonders why that seems to be the persistent case with you dave. dmb: > It's just about thinking and talking badly. It's about ruining the > possibility of any real communication. We trade in words and ideas here and > so this is NOT nit picking about typos or spelling errors. To misconstrue > the basic meaning of these terms is intellectually paralyzing. When confused > concepts are being used at that basic level, the conversation is going > nowhere fast. > > > John: Well, if you've got that out of your system, can you demonstrate any object or pattern that is truly static, in all of experience? No, you cannot. All "staticity" is a judgement of relative stability and all judgements are subjective. From an outsiders perspective, perhaps the whole cosmos is static, but from inside the cosmos, an outsider's perspective is impossible. Rocks seem about as static as things get, but from a geologic perspective, we know they are not. Static is a function of time, and time is a psychological construct. You can beat your chest and tear your hair throw all your little tantrums that you want, but you can't evade logic, perfessor. I suggest you simmer down and do a little more thinking. 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
