dmb & x-man,
The “self” is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and
impermanent static patterns: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social
patterns and intellectual patterns of value flowing in the infinite field of
Dynamic Quality.
I have pointed out many times, it is not anti-intellectual or a contradiction
to understand that patterns may maintain a static, stable identity at the same
time as they and their context are undergoing constant change. Think of the
Ship of Theseus, or a parade (Hume) where everyone drops out but is replaced so
that the parade is maintained, or the body with its cells constantly being
replaced...
If you are so concerned with dictionary definitions, why don't you lookup
'quality' and 'value' and see if it mentions either as being the foundation of
reality, or it mentions the "first cut" of either being into static and dynamic
aspects. So right from the get-go, with the Metaphysics of Quality, we are
beyond standard dictionary definitions. Philosophy often requires refining
terminology.
And to remind you of RMP's own words:
"Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since
Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of
Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity.
"It would be almost like a mathematical definition of randomness. The more you
try to say what randomness is the less random it becomes. Or 'zero,' or 'space'
for that matter. Today these terms have almost nothing to do with 'nothing.'
'Zero' and 'space' are complex relationships of 'somethingness.' If he said
anything about the scientific nature of mystic understanding, science might
benefit but the actual mystic understanding would, if anything, be injured. If
he really wanted to do Quality a favor he should just leave it alone.
(RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 5)
Marsha
On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:35 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave T,
> Please note the original criticism:
>
> From: david buchanan <[email protected]>
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Definitions.
>
> 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 (snipped for relevency)
>
> 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 way.
> (addition
> of "way" for meaning)(snipped for relevency)
>
> [Ron inserts]
> Dave T, note that Dave B. re-establishes his criticism of the use of the
> phrase "ever-changing
> static patterns " as a clear, precise definition simply because it is a
> contradiction in terms and
> contradictions are seldom very clear in terms of meaning.
>
> 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.
>
> [Ron inserts]
> 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 re-states:
> 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".(snipped for relevency)
> It doesn't make any more sense if you substitute "stable". You still get the
> same contradiction in terms.
>
> [Ron concludes]
> 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.
>
> I think your most recent posts have indeed reflected that.
>
> 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.
>
>
> ..
>
> ...
> 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
