Hi Dmb, Thanks for the post. We have Quality divided into the components of static and dynamic as a tool towards providing meaning. Such words can have different meaning to different people, and as such may not be the best description. I believe there is confusion about the difference between static and dynamic, perhaps you could clarify that. I provided the division as one of the world of appearances and that which creates them, as a suggestion. This is an intuitive approach which may shed some light on the subject.
Speaking of linguistics, I am curious on your take on "evolutionary framework". As I biologist, I have a different take on it than perhaps you do. It could mean simply the passage of things in a stepwise manner to a new level (which I think is its intent by Pirsig). Such evolution can be considered only in hindsight, and as such is a description of what was rather than a compelling description of the nature of things such as the biological description is. It would therefore seem that Pirsig is perhaps using it in the same way as the Gaia theory does. Perhaps you could state what evolution means to you. Likewise the term "known" could be ambiguous following rigorous analysis. We certainly have an anthropomorpic concept of knowing, which has to do with knowledge. What knowledge does a river have of its banks? Everybody knows what Quality is. Does such knowing simply mean to be in contact with, or is it something else? The point is, that your exasperation seems to deny the metaphoric use of words. Words are meant to provide meaning to each of us. The knower can not be subordinate to the words, since we create their meanings. A dictionary provides accepted meanings, but as you know, each word has many meanings. This is why I prefer to work in metaphors or analogies since they may paint a better picture than a word. Hang in there. Mark 2011/3/20 david buchanan <[email protected]>: > > John said to Dan: > I agree that there is nothing about absolute staticity. So we must mean > "relatively static" whenever we use the term, for we understand that there is > no such thing as any static thing. ... So I guess I'm glad the subject came > up, as I'm sincerely confused about the definition of 'Static". You wouldn't > think that would be such a problem,.. > > > dmb says: > I'm just amazed that the definition of "static" should be a problem. And I'm > even more amazed that people who have supposedly read Pirsig's books would > define "static" to mean "permanently fixed and eternal". We all know that > describes Plato's notion of the Good and that notion is Pirsig's central > target in ZAMM. Those terms are more than just available to him and if he > meant to say quality patterns were so rigid he would have called them > "eternal patterns of quality" or "fixed patterns" or "permanent > configurations" or something else like that. But he didn't. They're called > static patterns and he describes them as a stabilizing force existing in > relation to a larger an evolutionary framework. > > Just the other day I posted James and Pirsig describing the relations between > "static" and "dynamic". I posted those quotes along with the dictionary > definitions of those same terms. I don't honestly don't understand how or why > anyone could fail to comprehend the basic meaning of these terms. It's almost > impossible not to take a condescending attitude toward this or loose patience > completely. It's hard to believe that anyone could be so incapable of > learning the simplest things. Talking to people who don't know how to use > words is very frustrating in any situation and such people have no business > hanging out in philosophical discussion group. > > Mary, for example, thinks I need to explain how the phrase "everything gets > known by something" could possibly be related to the word "noetic". Really? > If we put that phrase next to the standard dictionary definition, then I > would have thought the meaning would be obvious to anyone. > noetic - adjective: of or relating to mental activity or the intellect. > ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Greek noētikos, from noētos 'intellectual,' from > noein 'perceive.' > > The word just refers to "perception" to "knowing" to "knowledge" and the > phrase in question was "everything gets KNOWN by something". How could anyone > fail to see the connection? Even if you have to look up the word and learn it > for the first time. How long could that take? Less than a minute, for sure. I > have no patience for that sort of thing. Who can't think their way through > that little problem? Be serious! > > > 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
