(Note: I gladly acknowledge that all spelling, grammar, and other errors, such as butchering the English language, are not intentional and are mine and mine alone. DLT)
DMB, I took your advise in the off-list email to me and will try again respond to our disagreement about DEFINATIONS of ³static² and ³stable². I again acknowledge my poor writing skills and blaming it on my lack of attention during my K thru12 years does correct the problem. Hopefully your tender sensibilities will not be too overloaded with the following. Since you are a great fan of Pirsig quotes I took the liberty of expanding the quote you provide to establish a little more context. > The second of James' two main systems of philosophy, which he said was > independent of pragmatism, was his radical empiricism. By this he meant that > subjects and objects are not the starting points of experience. Subjects and > objects are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more > fundamental which he described as 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes > the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories.' In this > basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, such as > those between consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and matter, > have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them. Pure experience cannot > be called either physical or psychical: it logically precedes this > distinction. > > In his last unfinished work, Some Problems of Philosophy, James had condensed > this description to a single sentence: 'There must always be a discrepancy > between concepts and reality, because the former are static and discontinuous > while the latter is dynamic and flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the > same words Phaedrus had used for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of > Quality. > > What the Metaphysics of Quality adds to James' pragmatism and his radical > empiricism is the idea that the primal reality from which subjects and objects > spring is value. By doing so it seems to unite pragmatism and radical > empiricism into a single fabric. Value, the pragmatic test of truth, is also > the primary empirical experience. The Metaphysics of Quality says pure > experience is value. Experience which is not valued is not experienced. The > two are the same. This is where value fits. Value is not at the tail-end of a > series of superficial scientific deductions that puts it somewhere in a > mysterious undetermined location in the cortex of the brain. Value is at the > very front of the empirical procession. Lila pg 170 To make sure we are on the same page, when James use of the words ³concepts² and ³percepts² he means: > The problem convenient to take up next in order will be that of the difference > between thoughts and things. ³Things² are know to us by ours senses, and are > called ³presentations² by some authors, to distinguish them from our ideas or > ³representations² which we may have when our senses are closed. I myself have > grown accustomed to the words ³percept² and ³concept² in treating the > contrast, but concepts flow out of percepts and into them again, they are so > interlaced, and our life rests on them so interchangeably and > undiscriminatingly, that it is often difficult to impart quickly to beginners > a clear notion of the difference meant. Sensation and thought in are mingled, > but they vary independently........... Some part of the stream of feeling must > be more intense, emphatic, and exciting than others in animals as in > ourselves; but whereas lower animals simply react upon these more salient > sensations by appropriate movements, higher animals remember themselves, and > men react to them intellectually, by using nouns, adjectives, and verbs to > identify them when they meet them elsewhere. > > The great difference between percepts and concepts(105) is that percepts are > continuous and concepts are discrete. Not discrete in their being, for > conception as an act is part of the flux of feeling, but discrete from each > other in the several meanings. Each concept means just what it singly means, > and nothing else; and if the conceiver does not know whether he means this or > that, it shows that his concept is imperfectly formed. The perceptual flux as > such, on the contrary, means nothing, and is but what it immediately is. No > matter how small a tract of it be taken, it is always a much-at-once, and > contains innumerable aspects and characters which conception can pick out, > isolate, and extend. > >> 105. In what follows I shall freely use synonyms for these two terms. Idea,¹ >> thought.¹ and intellection¹ are synonymous with concept.¹ Instead of >> percept¹ I shall often speak of sensation,¹ feeling,¹ intuition,¹ and >> sometimes of sensible experience¹ or of the immediate flow¹ of conscious >> life........ The Writings of William James-³Percepts and Concept-Import of >> Concepts² >> And then just to make sure here is James foundational definition of radical empiricism: > Were I obliged to give a short name to the attitude in question, I should call > it that of radical empiricism, in spite the fact that such brief nicknames are > nowhere more misleading than in philosophy. I say empiricism¹ because it is > contented to regard it most assured conclusions concerning matter of fact as > hypothesis liable to modification in the course of future experience; and I > say radical¹ because it treats the doctrine of monism itself as an > hypothesis, and, unlike so much half-way empiricism that is current under the > name of positivism or agnosticism or scientific naturalism, it does not > dogmatically affirm monism as something with which all experience has got to > square. The Writings of William James-³Radical Empiricism 1897² Ok, back to the issue at hand. Is static¹ really the best way to characterize static quality¹ or might they be better described as stable¹ qualities? You claim that this makes no difference because the definition of static¹ and stable¹ are essentially synonymous. You back that up, in your off-list email, by claiming you simply pasted the definition of stable¹ from your ³computer² dictionary. Of course being your amenable self, you suggested that I must be ³pretty bad, pretty thick, and obtuse² because I ³find [my]self at odds with dictionaries and encyclopedia then [I¹m] living in a world of confusion and nonsense.² You¹re right of course. Here I often find ³a world of confusion and nonsense² and try as I might I just can¹t seem to get you out of it. > So just to be sure I went back to Google and typed in stable¹ and low and behold the first dictionary listing (third from the top) by the Free Online Dictionary still lists the same entries as I previously posted them. > sta·ble 1 (stbl) (Free Online) > adj. sta·bler, sta·blest > 1. > 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. > 2. Enduring or permanent: a stable peace. > 3. > a. Consistently dependable; steadfast of purpose. > b. Not subject to mental illness or irrationality: a stable personality. > 4. Physics Having no known mode of decay; indefinitely long-lived. Used of > atomic particles. > 5. Chemistry Not easily decomposed or otherwise modified chemically. > Just to make sure I go to the next one down Merriam Webster¹s and find: > Definition of STABLE (Merriam Webster) > > 1 > a : firmly established : fixed, steadfast <stable opinions> > b : not changing or fluctuating : unvarying <in stable condition> > c : permanent, enduring <stable civilizations> > 2 > a : steady in purpose : firm in resolution > b : not subject to insecurity or emotional illness : sane, rational <a stable > personality> > 3 > a (1) : placed so as to resist forces tending to cause motion or change of > motion (2) : designed so as to develop forces that restore the original > condition when disturbed from a condition of equilibrium or steady motion > b (1) : not readily altering in chemical makeup or physical state <stable > emulsions> (2) : not spontaneously radioactive > Then I checked for synonyms of both words in both places and neither are synonyms for the other. The just to be sure I went to my paper copy of Webster¹s 1988 Third Collegiate Edition, same results. If we compare the definition of ³static² below and the ones for ³stable² what do we find? > stat·ic (sttk) (Free Online) > adj. > 1. > a. Having no motion; being at rest; quiescent. > b. Fixed; stationary. > Even in those definitions of ³stable² where ³fixed² is used such as in ³stable² ( currency, opinions, conditions, civilizations, personality, peace etc); we find in none of these uses such as ³stable opinions² can it be construed that it means they are eternally fixed, or forever unchanging. And then there is this Lila quote: > "Without stability nothing can last, without dynamics nothing will change" So what can I say Dave? Perhaps the kindest thing is to say, ³Have you considered law school?² Your use of rhetoric in this way, I understand, is highly valued in that profession. Your proof of static¹ being better, is that Pirsig points to James and his division between concepts and reality is analogous to MoQ¹s Static Quality and Dynamic Quality. > 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the > former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing.' > So the issue at hand is how does James characterize ³concepts.² In the longer quote above James says: > I myself have grown accustomed to the words ³percept² and ³concept² in > treating the contrast, but concepts flow out of percepts and into them again, > they are so interlaced, and our life rests on them so interchangeably and > undiscriminatingly,.......... The great difference between percepts and > concepts(105 Idea,¹ thought.¹ and intellection¹) is that percepts are > continuous and concepts are discrete. Not discrete in their being, for > conception as an act is part of the flux of feeling, but discrete from each > other in the several meanings. Each concept means just what it singly means, > and nothing else; and if the conceiver does not know whether he means this or > that, it shows that his concept is imperfectly formed. > If you read the bold face type above does any of this imply that concepts are fixed, eternal, stationary, unchanging? In more MoQish terms we perceive, or experience the dynamic flux within which we identify discrete, stable patterns for which we assign or develop a concepts, a name, an image, a pattern of sound or touch or smell, or some combination of them. But that pattern, as James says ³is a part of the flux², of Dynamic Quality. And as such it is both a discrete, dynamic, ever changing part of the flux and potentially a slightly more stable pattern, or concept, that flows into and out of that percept, that we may store in memory for future use. In addition as we read the last bold face line above we find a provision that is very important to the idea of concepts. We make mistakes, errors. If concepts were static, eternal, never changing we would have no provision to correct them. One can almost say the whole rational for ³radical empiricism² is to provide for errors in our conceptions. So what if both Pirsig and James knowing it is (as James says above) ³is often difficult to impart quickly to beginners a clear notion of the difference meant² chose ³static² vs ³dynamic² because of their stark, clear cut, black and white nature? As labels? Even though they may have not been as ³technically² accurate, as their more detailed discussions reveal? Because they were both talking to ³beginners,² a broad range of people that may have had little background in philosophy and certainly little exposure to either of their works. So Dave to help you correct your error in conception, the next time Marsha posts, ³ever changing pattern of (static quality...)² mentally replace the bracketed text with the Idea,¹ thought.¹ intellection¹ or concept¹ that ³static quality² is (A label that Pirsig gave to that class of discrete piece and parts of the dynamic flux that we perceive and the concepts we use to describe and order them.) Glad to be of help, 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
