Marsha said:
It is not 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. Things can change - flow - and
yet have stabilty; think of a river.
dmb says:
Yes, it is a contradiction. Nothing can maintain a static, stable identity and
also constantly change. The ship of Theseus and the Parade of Hume are objects
and the question is riddles are about the essences of objects. Your
contradiction is a matter of equating opposed concepts, concepts that are
define in opposition to each other. The cells in your body are constantly being
replaced but the concepts "cell" and "body" remain stable. Even your "defense"
displays the same confusion between concepts and reality. That's the difference
between static patterns and Dynamic Quality.
Will you never get this point? Reality is ever-changing and concepts are not
reality. The MOQ and its concepts, like all philosophies, static intellectual
quality, not reality. Some people can learn faster than others and that's fine.
But this level of incorrigibility can't be explained by the standard variations
in intelligence. Your case is so extreme that there must be a fairly serious
psychological problem at work here. Whatever the cause might be, the effect is
a constant stream of interruptions and diversions. You, Marsha, just cannot or
will not play this game we call philosophy. I think we can have compassion for
your plight and still fully recognize that you are turd in the punchbowl.
Marsha, your attitude is hateful and irresponsible and amoral. And the actual
conceptual content is just incoherent drivel. It's an embarrassment. What did
Robert Pirsig ever do to you, Marsha, that cause you to abuse his work like
this? What did the English language ever do to deserve this torture? Why do you
constantly condemn intellectuals, academic philosophers and William James and
then act like this is Pirsig's attitude too? It's obviously not. That's just a
reflection of your own anti-intellectualism, resentment, jealousy and fondness
for evasion. It's pure bullshit. And it's merely personal too. You just can't
stand the idea that I could correct your misunderstanding. Your constantly
evasions and dismissals. Lucy. are empty, irrational, ego-driven nonsense. You
think you can win the argument through sheer repetition, as if posting your
contradictory drivel over and over again will somehow make it coherent. It
won't.
The MOQ is logically consistent but you, Marsha, are not. Not even close. Don't
get me wrong. It's NOT that I'm a huge fan of logic. It's just that you,
Marsha, have a serious problem meeting the most basic standards of thought and
speech. I'd really rather be talking about something more interesting than
contradictory sentences and the meaning of the MOQ's basic terms but that's
just the nature your problem whether I like it or not.
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
