Arlo,
I was more interested in the paradoxes presented by language. For me there are two types of truth: a conventional truth and a Dynamic ultimate truth. Of course, I act in the world in the conventional manner and need not worry that a motorcycle left in the parking lot will not become noticeably different during the absence of a few beers. Yet metaphysically, I understand static patterns of value to be overlapping, interconnected, ever-changing process, which tend to persist and change in a stable, predictable pattern. Marsha On Mar 21, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [Marsha] > I hope Arlo does not mind me reposting it; I only save posts I think are the > most brilliant. > > [Arlo] > Arlo doesn't mind, although since I was not a part of your disagreement with > DMB, I am not sure what kind of "HA!" John thinks this conveys, but oh well. > Nor am I sure your point? > > But since this seems to imply your asking me my thoughts, and to clarify, > I'll chime in. > > First, I agree with Dave in that presenting only two options (ever-changing > and never-changing) is wrong. I also agree that Dynamic Quality is best > understood as "ever-changing", so using that term to describe static quality > unnecessarily conflates and confuses the two. > > Yes, when viewed from an "eternal perspective", all static patterns change > over time. None are "eternally permanent" and un-changing. But, for me, the > distinction is that it is pragmatically useful for us to act in the world by > seeing static patterns as unchanging enough to be, for all intents and > purposes, "unchanging" and "discrete". > > For example, I know that when I go into a pub and park my Harley outside, > when I come out in a few hours (barring theft) my motorcycle will be as I > left it, and I know I will be able to discern my motorcycle from a cloud, the > dirt and even the motorcycle next to it. Sure, if you ask me I will > acknowledge that in thousands of years the metal and fiberglass and rubber > and whatnot that compromise my Harley will have likely "changed" through > disintergration or some other transformative process. > > But pragmatically, it is of more value to me to act as if the bike is > unchanging and discrete. Yes, I know this is ultimately an illusion. Yes, I > know the motorcycle is not eternally unchanging in the cosmos. But acting > like the bike is "ever changing" and "indiscrete" from other static patterns > would leave me very hindered at acting in the real world. > > So saying the bike is "ever-changing" and "indiscrete from other patterns" > has no real practical value. So I don't act with pragmatic consideration at > the knowledge that in 100,000 years the iron will be disintegrated. I don't > act with pragmatic consideration that its patterns are part of the clouds > above and dirt below and other machines next to it. > > I can hear the mechanics chiming in that one HAS to pragmatically recognize > the changes going on within the motorcycle to keep it running, and I am not > saying these can be pragmatically ignored. I am talking about the > "staticness" that keeps the motorcycle from disappearing as a "motorcycle", > and for me that is rooted in the pragmatic value that acting as if the > machine is stable over time and discernable from the birds flying overhead > brings. > > I know in billions and billions of years the earth will no longer exist, the > sun will be dead, maybe our entire galaxy may be collapsed into a black hole, > but its more useful to me to act regarding my motorcycle still being in the > parking garage when I go back for it, and that I will be able to discern my > motorcycle from the cars, the stones, the people, the fence, the bushes, etc. > > ___ 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
