[MD] The Word is Not the Thing

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ron]
... but if you want to keep dry humping the burning effigy of arlo 
like some rabid horny dog, be my guest.

[Arlo]
....

daaaaaammmmnnnn.....

......

We go back to Pirsig's "all this is just an analogy", and the "logic" 
of developing a definitional system of an undefinable concept.

When Pirsig wrote that developing a definitional system of an 
undefinable concept is "is essentially a contradiction in terms, a 
logical absurdity.. almost like a mathematical definition of 
randomness" (LILA), he was aware (and untroubled) by the inevitable 
paradox that would result. It was the same paradox that he found 
when, as a young student, he turned science method upon itself. 
Pirsig explained the results of this recursion as such. "What this 
means logically is that as you try to move toward unchanging truth 
through the application of scientific method, you actually do not 
move toward it at all. You move away from it! It is your application 
of scientific method that is causing it to change! ... It is a 
catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all 
scientific method!" (ZMM)

"All this is just an analogy", like I said, when taken 
self-reflexively, is a self-denying statement. Its yet another 
version of the well-known "This statement is false" example.

Postmodernists and Zen Masters don't struggle with the linguistic 
contradiction of this. I actually am amazed anyone here does. Didn't 
we move past Zeno a while back? (Pun intended)

But let's back up all the way to my original "postmodernist" 
contention that "all static patterns" are in some degree of flux, 
whether they change in minutes, years or over billions of years. Can 
anyone name ANY static pattern that is NOT in some manner of flux? Is 
that really rocket science to some people?

That's why expressions like "more permanent" are "Koanic" and fun. 
They point to the incompleteness of language (of all symbolic 
systems). Such word games only illuminate the void, make us away of 
our illusions.

But like I also said, Ron, Platt's motive here was certainly not 
dialogue, as he has offered up not one substantive point. Instead, 
its just been an excuse to attack me. Something got his g-nads all in 
a knot, my guess is the vitriol du jour on his talk-radio programs 
was about them evil "acerdimics" again. Who knows...