[MD] The Quality of Free Will

[David Thomas]

On 7/18/11 12:04 PM, "David Buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> dmb says:
> A collection of ever-changing static patterns?
> 
> Will somebody please explain to Marsha why this statement is logically
> incoherent?
> 
> Will somebody please explain that "static" is the opposite of "ever-changing"?
> 
> Will somebody please explain that there is better word for ever-changing, one
> that is opposed to "static" within the MOQ and that this word is "dynamic".
> 
> Will somebody please explain exactly how and why her claim is nonsense?
> 
> She won't hear it from me but she really, really, really needs to hear from
> somebody.

Dave
The problem of course is the source material she is using. Pirsig chose
static and dynamic for his primary division of quality. I have long
maintained that he did this for rhetorical reasons not metaphysical ones.
Alternately he uses the term "stable" patterns as though it is the same as
"static" patterns. Metaphysically it is not.

sta·ble 1  (stbl)
adj. sta·bler, sta·blest
1.
a. Resistant to change of position or condition; not easily moved or
disturbed: a house built on stable ground; a stable platform.
b. Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation: a stable economy;
a stable currency.
c. Maintaining equilibrium; self-restoring: a stable aircraft.
2. Enduring or permanent: a stable peace.
3.
a. Consistently dependable; steadfast of purpose.
b. Not subject to mental illness or irrationality: a stable personality.
4. Physics Having no known mode of decay; indefinitely long-lived. Used of
atomic particles.
5. Chemistry Not easily decomposed or otherwise modified chemically.

All these definitions of "stable" suggest that change is possible. "Static"
on the other hand implies it is not.  With the possible exception of
religious and philosophical dogma I can't recall every experiencing a static
pattern. As I look out my window now the major elements I experience are
trees, lake, and sky. There are clouds in the sky. They are stable enough
that I can visually identify them and see that though they are constantly
changing shape and moving to the northwest they are still what almost all of
us would agree are "clouds". The same for the "lake", "trees" etc. etc.

So if Marsha merely substituted "stable" for "static" to correct for
Pirsig's error in her definition....

> Within MoQ self as a a collection of ever-changing, interrelated, impermanent,
> [STABLE] patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value in a
> field of Dynamic Quality,......

Are you still dogmatically opposed to it?

My guess is yes.

Dave