[MD] The other side of reified

[MarshaV]

On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:04 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Marsha wrote: 
> Static patterns of value are processes: impermanent, interdependent, ever-changing. (Not objects. Not subjects. Not things-in-themselves.)  Overlapping, interconnected, ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend to persist  and change within a stable, predictable pattern. ...Dmb has challenged this definition by removing two words (static and ever-changing) from their context (reifying them) and pitting them against each other.  As if two words pulled from a definition can in any way represent the whole definition.  Besides, one can easily understand 'ever-changing' as the 'evolution' process, which makes it very consistent within MoQ.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Removing the terms from their context? Apparently you don't know what "context" means. 

Marsha:
Here's the explanation I find useful for context:

"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 and the static patterns influence his
final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value
judgments but not complete uniformity."   

  (RMP, SODV)



> Pirsig says that static patterns do not change all by themselves and without Dynamic Quality they would simply die of old age. He says static pattern are the force of order, the value of stability without which nothing could last. Your definition, especially the "ever-changing" part, simply contradicts the meaning of the term.

Marsha:
He agrees that static quality is like maya in the sense 'that it is illusory to believe that people and the objects of their world are permanent, independent and unchanging.'    You are living a som illusion of the MoQ.  


> Let's say we have some big, coherent set of ideas, a whole metaphysical system based around "Water" and it begins with a distinction between solid water and flowing water. We can say that they are different even though they are both water. They're different because the chunks of ice have a definite shape and location whereas a stream of liquid water has no particular shape and is constantly in motion. We can say they are different because the solid form is for skating and skiing and chilling our cocktails while the latter is for boating, swimming and drinking. By analogy, your definition of "solid" would lead you to take a swan-dive into an iceberg or a skating rink. To define static patterns as ever-changing is like defining "solid" as freely flowing and fluid. Sure, ice melts. Glaciers flow in their own icy way and nobody thinks icebergs are permanent or eternal. But that doesn't mean that ice can be defined as a liquid. That's just not what the word means. Terms like "frozen" and "ice" specifically refer to that which is not in a liquid state, derive their meaning by virtue of what they are not as well as what they are. That's why we call it a distinction in the first place. By analogy, you've defined solid ice as warm and wet. That's not deep or wise, sister. That's just profoundly confused nonsense. It's like you're trying to be as wrong as possible on purpose.

Marsha:
Let's say your irrelevant romantic blathering is nonsense.  



> You're defining static as "ever-changing", which is the exact opposite of what the word means. The most basic dictionary definition explicitly says the term described that which is "lacking in change" or "not able to change". Go ahead. Continue to use the english language with this level of precision. Let us know how that works out for you.  

Marsha:
Have you found the words 'static' or 'dynamic' within a dictionary definition of 'quality.'    Btw, have you looked up the words 'natural' and 'inborn' as Wallace used them for the process of 'reification.'





___