On 9/22/13 1:45 PM, "David Buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> DMB said: > ...Why wouldn't we want to be accurate about Pirsig's meaning on this point or > any other aspect of the MOQ? Why is it a problem to think that static patterns > can provide order and stability without being eternally fixed and forever > frozen? > > Dave Thomas replied: > No the real problem is, Why would Pirsig pick the word "static" for patterns > of human knowledge that obviously change at rates from almost never to nearly > continuous? Our experience of reality is dynamic. From those experiences we > infer pragmatically that reality is also dynamic. Under the MoQ this dynamic > reality is a monism consisting solely of various manifestations of Quality. > What good is it to portray that the tiny subset of dynamic reality that we > call "human knowledge" with word "static"? It's not. ... > > dmb says: > Like Marsha, you are confusing static concepts with dynamic reality. You are > blurring the first and most important distinction in the MOQ. [Dave] If there were only one static level you might be right that I'm "confusing static concepts with dynamic reality." If Pirsig follows James, "concepts" are intellectual patterns. But there are three more levels. Are you suggesting the patterns on those levels are nothing but words or concepts? Or the pattern called "man" is nothing but words and concepts? If so why is there not just one level "intellectual"? >dmb >Human knowledge > is static quality and, like I explained at length, "static" just means > "stable" and NOT eternally fixed or forever frozen. Further evolution requires > this stability but would be impossible if "static" meant "fixed" or "frozen". > Stable is healthy but fixed and frozen is an evolution-killer. It's not just a > bad idea to portray static patterns as ever-changing (and therefore totally > unstable) and it's not just a bad idea to portray them as never-changing, > there is also no support for either idea in Pirsig's work. Every piece of > evidence paints them as provisional and evolving, as stable latching, and they > all exist together in this evolutionary relationship. This comports with > common sense. The dictionary, for example, is a great record of the evolution > of our language. It changes and grows along with the rest of the culture. > It's a building process and these patterns now fill a long train of boxcars, > the library of congress, the shared history, accumulated scientific knowledge > so that each person doesn't have to begin life as a caveman. And man is a > participant in the creation of this whole static world. This is the mythos. It > is us and we are it. And all of this is supposed to be distinguished from the > mystic reality, from DQ, the immediate flux of life, pure experience, the > primary empirical reality, or whatever else we might call the dynamic reality. [Dave] You make my point very well. Pirsig chose "static" and in at least one place refers to it as "dead."That's pretty "fixed," "frozen" unchangable in my book. Yet to define "static" you don't use any of its' definitions but turn to a related, but subtly different, synonym "stable," which means "Resistant to change of position or condition; not easily moved or disturbed." You keep screaming that words and definitions really do matter, yet you seem to be willing to give Pirsig a bye when he uses "static" when the better word was "stable." > > Dave Thomas continued: > Pirsig was so locked into the idea that first split in quality was so, so > crucial yet when he did use his "knife" he fell into the very trap he rails > against. Subject/Object, Mind/Body, Black/White, Static/Dynamic. The "best" > splits are all opposites? He didn't need the split. The split is built right > in, Dynamic Reality/Our Experience of, and subsequent knowledge of it. > Dictionaries are chocked full of words to corral the idea that our knowledge > of reality is limited, partial, incomplete, often wrong, etcetera, > etcetera....... unfortunately "static" is one that is so far down the quality > list that it makes the Dynamic/Static pairing just another bad opening. It > confuses more than it clarifies. Not good. > > > dmb says: > I can't any sense of your objection. How is the static-Dynamic split a trap? > How is it a trap to distinguish one concept from another or one color from > another? That's just what words and concepts are supposed to do. This > conceptualization process is contrasted with or distinguished from DQ. You can > see this in the descriptions offered by James, Northrop, and Pirsig. James > contrasts "the immediate flux of life" with our "conceptual categories". This > is another way to express the contrast DQ with sq. Northrop describes DQ as > an "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum". Again, we see the same contrast > because our conceptual categories are differentiations. Every definition and > every concept is a differentiation. Pirsig is saying exactly the same thing > when he says that language chops things up whereas the mystic reality is > undivided. Distinctions, differences, divisions, categories are all static and > conceptual and this is a very, very important aspect of the MOQ first and most > important distinction. It is impossible to comprehend MOQ without getting > this straight. And dude, you're WAY off. [Dave] So what you're saying is that biological pattern growing in my front yard that I experience with my senses and name with the concept "oak tree" (that oak tree, right there, which I can go and kick) is nothing but a word or concept? This "reality" that mystics experience is in all probability a form of insanity more than anything else. Ever hear of that serial mystic Mohamed and his revelations, the Koran? How well is that working out? Or Buddha who claimed that suffering could be ended. But only for men, who must be celibate, could abandoned their families, must live together in separate groups and meditate. All the while being fed, clothed, and housed by their societies. Or that we would be better served to rely on an Indian shaman who pierces his back muscles with hooks and dances in the hot sun until he has a vision of "reality." Have we learned nothing about mystics from history? > > > Dave Thomas said: > ...as Patrick Doorly's "The Truth about Art" clearly illustrates the word, the > meaning, and the practices meriting the name "art" have dynamically evolved, > changed, sometimes radically over the last 3000 years of Western culture > alone. To characterize this word, it ideas, written texts and artifacts as > "static, making little or no change, having no motion; being at rest; > quiescent, fixed; stationary" is just not a "species of GOOD" for me. It does > not agree with my experience. > > > dmb says: > You are disputing the wrong conception of "static". You are rejecting an idea > that nobody asked you to accept. Your conception of "static" does not reflect > Pirsig's descriptions or anyone's. You're only rejecting your own bogus > conception of the term. It's quite obvious that Pirsig evolutionary morality > would be sunk (and totally incoherent) if he denied the possibility change and > evolution. [Dave] All I'm saying is that was a bad choice of words made for rhetorical purposes and that the whole body of work called "human knowledge" is changing moment by moment and is much closer to "ever-changing" than "little or no change" - "static." And I suspect your specious diatribe against Marsha has little to do with Pirsig's work and more to do your frustration that she won't submit to your will and leave this forum. As a cheerleader, you are doing Pirsig no favor. > > Dave Thomas said: > But I do thank you. Without your help I would not have become a MoQ apostate. > If your words here accurately depict the morality of this system and the real > world actions they inspire, and I think they do, it's not something I wish to > apply to my life or recommend to a friend. > > > > dmb says: > Well, like I said, all you've done here is renounce your own misconception of > Pirsig's term "static". One cannot reject a philosophy without first > understanding the thing they're supposedly rejecting. That's like criticizing > a movie that you never saw. I mean, you can go ahead and do it anyway but it's > quite meaningless. > [Dave] You have been relying on this argument for what, fifteen years? It's getting pretty stale. Instead of being a Pirsig Parrot, try your own critical thinking once in a while you might find it enlightening. > > > > > > 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
