David Thomas 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.
Ron commented:
Dave T, note you just said that your knowledge (what you know to be true)
gained by dynamic quality, (empirical knowledge) is more dynamic than abstract
(intellectual) concepts. Dave B agrees but re-states that this is not the bone
of contention.
dmb says:
I don't think I agree with DT there and picked a bone with that already,
actually. I think it's a mistake to think of "static" in physicalist terms like
that. A wheel in motion is still a wheel and it's still static in that sense.
If it weren't static, it would fall apart and you'd crash your bike or car or
whatever. A defined thing doesn't become dynamic just because it is set in
motion. The patterns of growth and development in all life forms are also
"stable" in this sense. Eating, breathing, running or whatever does not make
anyone Dynamic in the Pirsigian sense but only in a very trivial and literal
sense. Dynamic and static aren't about what's moving or not. It's the
distinction between experiential flux and the conceptual order. The flux is
ever-changing and dynamic with the order is stable and persistent.
Ron concluded:
The context of the criticism is contradiction in terms, therefore a
contradiction in meaning. Unclear, "interpretive" definitions are less useful
and therefore of lower value than clear precise definitions and meaning.
"everchanging-static" falls into that catagory of contradiction. This is why
Dave B. asserts the criticism that you are not a careful reader and are not
addressing the original criticism (contradiction in meaning regarding
definition) in context and implies that you need to work on your critical
thinking skills. ...Now if you can make the case that contradiction is more
meaningful than clarity and precision in the context of definition I think we
would all be very interested in hearing it.
dmb says:
Yea, thanks Ron. That's pretty much how I see it and it goes double for Marsha,
whose definition is at issue here.
I'd qualify that a bit, however. I have no problem with interpretations and
they're impossible to avoid even if you wanted to. I'm just opposed to nonsense
and contradictory in general and in this particular case the terms being used
so badly are the most crucial terms of all. This kind of nonsense obscures and
muddies the very thing we're here to discuss (The MOQ).
It's tragic because it's so pointless. It's like a diabolical stink bomb of
stupidity, one designed to ruin any chance of anyone learning anything about
the MOQ.
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
