Greetings,
>> [MD] static patterns of value >> On Sep 20, 2013, at 1:28 AM, MarshaV wrote: >> >> My definition of static patterns of value are repetitive processes (multiple >> events), conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, that >> pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable >> pattern. Within the MoQ, these patterns are morally categorized into a >> four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, >> social and intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative >> to other patterns: patterns depend upon innumerable conditions, depend upon >> parts and the collection of parts, depend upon nominal and conceptual >> designation. Patterns have no independent, inherent existence. Further, >> these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static >> pattern of life history. ------------- dmb responds: > Re: [MD] static patterns of value > On Sep 20, 2013, at 2:00 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > And your defense of this nonsense, the often repeated claim that "these > patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern of > life history" is just as confused and incoherent. RMP does NOT say "that the > differences in a static pattern of value is due to an individual's static > pattern history". You want to invoke this ever-changing relativism so that > your contradictory nonsense can be construed as different rather than bad and > wrong but this kind of relativism is really bad and really wrong. It's like > saying that you have your own set of static patterns wherein it is not wrong > to say two plus two equals five. Because of my life history, I can interpret > Einstein's equation as C=em2. Marsha: Description of a Straw Man: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. What? An extreme example such as dmb writing "It's like saying that you have your own set of static patterns wherein it is not wrong to say two plus two equals five. Because of my life history, I can interpret Einstein's equation as C=em2." That certainly is a distortion, an exaggeration and a misrepresentation of what I actually wrote. ------------- Marsha responds: > Re: [MD] static patterns of value > On Sept 21, 2013, at 12:27 AM MarshaV wrote: > > dmb: > RMP does NOT say "that the differences in a static pattern of value is due to > an individual's static pattern history". Marsha offers a RMP quote: "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance left one enormous metaphysical problem unanswered that became the central driving reason for the expansion of the Metaphysics of Quality into a second book called Lila. This problem was: if Quality is a constant, why does it seem so variable? Why do people have different opinions about it? The answer became: The quality that was referred to in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance can be subdivided into Dynamic Quality and static quality. Dynamic Quality is a stream of quality events going on and on forever, always at the cutting edge of the present. But in the wake of this cutting edge are static patterns of value. These are memories, customs and patterns of nature. The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality an d the static patterns influence his final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value judgments but not complete uniformity." [Marsha:] This is why I state that the difference in a static pattern of value is due to an individual's static pattern history. ------------- Dmb bounces to different thread, yet still distortedly complaining: [MD] 3 (or 4) kinds of wrong On Sep 24, 2013, at 5:15 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: The first kind of wrongness involves claims and statements that are either unsupported by Pirsig's texts or, much worse, claims that contradict the textual evidence. An example would be the claim that each individual has their own truths and values because of each individual's life history. This is always a dispute about what the evidence does and does not support. It's about what can be justified on the basis of the evidence, how to properly interpret the evidence. ------------- Marsha: This is why I mostly ignore what dmb writes. Sorry, but there is no foundation for discussion. If there is anyone ignoring RMP's "textual evidence" it is dmb. Marsha ___ 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
