On Sep 30, 2013, at 12:32 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> dmb said:
> It's not exactly clear how Marsha arrives at the idea that static patterns
> are ever-changing but it's clear that she has confused static concepts with
> dynamic reality. When we look at the textual evidence, we can see terms like
> "ever-changing" are actually used to describe DQ. What could be more
> confusing ..? ...The evidence very obviously contradicts this bogus claim.
>
>
>
>
> Marsha replied:
>
> ...The accusation seems to be that the statement is pure contradiction. And
> further, the accusation seems to be that I am using the word 'ever-changing'
> as an adjective to the word 'static', which would be a linguistic
> contradiction, but I am not. I am using the word 'ever-changing' to more
> precisely describe how static patterns (as process) function. The analogy I
> offer is skin, which is ever-changing... The Ship of Theseus is another
> example of, yes, ever-changing... Or think of a parade where everyone drops
> out but is replaced so that the parade is maintained.
>
>
> dmb says:
> Yes, it's incorrect both logically and grammatically to describe static
> patterns as ever-changing but that is not the only problem. It's more
> important to notice that your definition of static patterns contradicts the
> textual evidence. The textual evidence contradicts what you are saying. The
> evidence says that DQ is ever-changing, not static patterns.
Marsha:
Says you. As you well know in philosophical discussion words can have unique
meaning. I've explained my meaning to include "that pragmatically tend to
persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. " If that doesn't
work for you, I am not much concerned. RMP has stated clearly that 'change'
is a static pattern of value:
"Change is probably the first concept emerging from this Dynamic experience..."
(RMP, 'LILA's Child', Annotation 57)
He's also seemed to think 'unpatterned' would have been an appropriate label
and by extension not definable, not divisible, not bounded, not dualistic, "not
this, not that", not (conceptually) knowable, though it can be directly
experienced and known like one knows the tea is hot when one is drinking it,
making there nothing to change:
"... my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not a wise
statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial definition of Dynamic
Quality. Whenever one talks about Dynamic Quality someone else can take
whatever is said and make a static pattern out of it and then dialectically
oppose that pattern. The best answer to the question, “What is Dynamic
Quality?” is the ancient Vedic one——“Not this, not that.”"
(RMP, 'LILA's Child')
> That is exactly the term Pirsig uses in ZAMM but he is using it to describe
> the undefined Good of the sophists, AS OPPOSED TO Plato's fixed and unmoving
> idea.
Better write to RMP, in care of his publisher, and ask him, because your
particular restrictive dogma doesn't work for me. And I'm not much interested
if my particular interpretation works for you. I'm not playing an either/or
game.
Marsha
p.s. I thought putting the 'hmmm' into the 'Nihilism, hmmm.' subject line was
to provoke a response from me, and it did. The movie, like me, is not
nihilistic. :-)
___
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
