On 2/15/13 3:58 PM, "David Buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Thomas said to dmb: > ...Now years later we hear via Ant that Pirsig, upon consideration, agrees > that "stable" really would have been a better choice. And, What do you do? > Ignore it and keep frothing at the mouth with more and viler ad holmium > attacks. > > > dmb says: > What makes you think I have a problem with the term "stable"? I don't. That is > already what I take "static" to mean and have ofter said so in this forum. > I've been using "static" in my criticism of Marsha's contradictory definition > of the self just because that's the word she uses in a contradictory. The > arguments against this contradiction are in no way predicated on Marsha's > character or whatever. I'm attacking the contradiction, not Marsha personally. > It's certainly true that I personally do not like her but that is irrelevant > to the criticism. Asking somebody a question like, "when are you ever going to > grow up?" is, on the other hand, a perfect example of an ad hominem attack. > But more to the point... > > David Thomas also said: > In my world, stable every changing patterns of quality are sure closer to my > knowledge of experience than ones that, "Have no motion; being at rest; > quiescent or are fixed; stationary. The primary DEFINITIONS of STATIC. But > that's just me. Oh and Marsha, and probably every other less pedant human than > you. > > The immature pedant (dmb) says: > Man, it just kills that this won't go away. It should have been resolved years > ago and it should have taken about two minutes. > There is a huge mistake in your assertion that I want to address but let me > just deal with the contradictory phrase first. D: The reason it won't go away is simple. You keep bring it back up. Pirsig, Ant, myself and others think that "stable", the way I defined it, is a better characterization than "static." Since it was Pirsig who made the characterization in the first place and later changed it. Might he not have some precedence? As far a Marsha coupling, "every changing" and "static patterns" One Pirsig gave her "Static Quality" to work with. Second since you have tried to bully her since she arrived, she has proven she will not be bullied and will keep giving as long as you receive. > Why is it contradictory to define the self with terms like "ever-changing > static patterns"? It simple. Anyone can see this just by looking at the > definition of "static". D: Ok, what if we change this to, "every-changing stable patterns?" using these definitions. > Stable >> > a. Resistant to change of position or condition; not easily moved or >> > disturbed: a house built on stable ground; a stable platform. >> > b. Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation: a stable >> economy; a >> > stable currency. >> > c. Maintaining equilibrium; self-restoring: a stable aircraft. > >dmb > static |ˈstatik|adjective1 lacking in movement, action, or change, esp. in a > way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting : D: No I understand fully well what "static" is. It is characteristic of positions like you and Bo take and then rigorously restate over, and over, and over hoping that repetition will win the argument. One of the reasons I rarely post here anymore is just this kind of pedantry. > So Marsha contradictory wording basically means a "constantly changing lack of > change" or "always changing lack of change". It doesn't make any more sense if > you substitute "stable". You still get the same contradiction in terms. > > stable 1 |ˈstābəl|adjective ( -bler , -blest )not likely to change or fail; > firmly established : D: Here is a classic example. I post three DEFINITIONS of stable then in an effort to try and win an argument you go and find a forth one that sounds more "static". > > In either case "ever-changing" is crucial in understanding what "static" or > "stable" is not. Those terms are both literally defined in CONTRAST to change, > as lacking change, as resistance to change. It's okay to talk about the growth > and evolution of static patterns. That's why "stable" is probably a better > word - because "static" could be interpreted to mean completely frozen or > totally incapable of change. But I never read it that way. But "ever-changing" > is simply incorrect because it is the opposite of stable or static. > > But I've said this so many times that even I am sick of it. Do you really not > see the problem here? I'm not holding my breath. > > Your assertion, Dave, mixes up several issues at once. Not sure if I can > untangle it but I'll try. If I follow, you're okay with "ever-changing static > patterns" because your experience is filled with motion and movement. It seems > that you are misunderstanding the static as if it were the property of a > physical object, as in physics. That's not how Pirsig is using the word. > Static patterns are concepts, words, definitions and the like. In the MOQ, > even subjects and objects are secondary, they are concepts derived from > experience. Experience is the ever-changing part, concepts are the static > part. > I wonder if your phrase, "my knowledge of experience," betrays a confusion or > conflation of this very important distinction. The line between concepts and > reality is the MOQ's central distinction, is the line between static quality > and DQ. D: I originally typed "my experience" then added "knowledge of". Why? Because with the first you would have said something like "of course your experience is dynamic, in flux, static pattern are static." My knowledge of experience, Stable Quality, changes both in my memory and/or my reality overtime, or I misunderstand SQ. Which well I might. > > Pirsig quotes James on this point, thrilled that James had even used the exact > same terms: > "There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the > former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing." If SQ is only words, concepts, images, musical riffs and such that reside only in my head, in memory, I might buy they are static. Though even that ,given my memory, is surely not the case. Surely my memories of the experience "calculus" has changed since setting in a college classroom. I believe that one the primary value of concepts, words, memories is they are usefully. They lead us to and from stable patterns in our environment. My mental SQ "blueberry" may lead me to the stable pattern in my backyard at a certain time of year or to Walmart in the winter. But that stable pattern "blueberry" in my head doesn't have antioxidants and the one from Walmart are only stable for a short period of time before they they dynamically morph into compost. You may argue until your blue in the face that the stable pattern we commonly call "blueberries" is static, unchanging, but whether you eat them or not my experience has shown me they are in a constant flux even when I don't experience them. > "In the past Pheadrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality > alone and neglect static patterns of quality. ... But now he was beginning to > see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life cannot exist on Dynamic > Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality is to > cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by > studying what it is not rather that futilely trying to define what it is... > Slowly at first, and then with increasing awareness that he was going in a > right direction, Phaedrus' central attention turned away from any further > explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned to the static patterns themselves." > > "Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand > blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, > nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic > progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, > creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the > quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can > survive without the other." > > My criticism starts out as a simple problem of grammar and logic but this > contradictory phrase ends up having a very destructive effect on the content > of the philosophy. It confuses and conflates DQ (ever-changing) with static > quality. It conflates and confused the distinction between concepts and > empirical reality. D: I maintain that unless the concept “waterfall” leads me to a stable pattern in my empirical reality of “waterfall,” with the water ever changing and dynamically falling into the river below, it has no value. > > If you think these concerns are childish or petty, then you have misunderstood > what I'm saying. Yes,Yes, and probably yes. Dave 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
