[MD] The hard question.

[MarshaV]

Hi dmb, 

On May 25, 2012, at 9:52 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Marsha said to dmb:
> To make myself clear, I am not interested in a debate concerning the linguistic analysis of words, definitions and meaning so much as being interested in probing 'the way things are'.  The MoQ, after all, is a metaphysics, a theory concerning reality, not an aspect of linguistic philosophy. ...
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> The complaints are not about linguistic philosophy. The criticism is, quite simply, that your words and ideas are contradictory and incoherent.  The problem, which you never address and do not seem to grasp regardless of how carefully it's explained, is that your statements are nonsense. The issue is that you've confused and conflated the MOQ's core concepts. Unless and until you address the substance of this often-repeated criticism, I'll remain convinced that you don't know what you're talking about.

Marsha:
Yours is a much too general complaint; it is simply an unsubstantiated, ad hominem accusation.  You rarely unpack a complaint in any detail; and while you complain often, you rarely make a specific case for the complaint.  There is usually no substance to your "often-repeated complaints", and this post is a perfect example of accusation without substance; there are no examples included.

An exception is my use of 'ever-changing' with regards to static patterns, where your complaint is that it doesn't conform to the definition found in the dictionary or the insightful complaint that my explanation is a "1000% longer than it needs to be".  The "1000%" nonsense is not more than YOUR aesthetic evaluation; this judgement may be valuable to you, but it not a philosophical complaint or explanation to be taken seriously.  The 'ever-changing' I have repeatedly justified with examples and, most importantly, with a quote from the 'MoQ Textbook': 

"It’s fairly obvious from reading Pirsig’s texts that SOM is perceived by him as an example of ignorant thinking. Briefly, this is due to such systems ignoring the reality of Dynamic Quality. Why this is particularly ignorant is explained by the ‘Three Aspects’ of the Cittamatra school of Mahayana Buddhism.  Williams (1988, p.83) states that the First Aspect refers to the falsifying activity of language which implies independent and permanent existence to things. As Hagen 202 (1997, p.30) notes, one of the most fundamental truths noted by the Buddha is that all aspects of our experience are in constant flux and change. According to the Buddha, when a person ignores this truth they subject themselves to dukkha."

202 Pirsig (1998b) notes that Hagen‘s text Buddhism: Plain & Simple ‘…shows the similarities, between the MOQ and Zen Buddhism more clearly than any other I have seen.’ "
      (McWatts, MoQ Textbook) 

Please note in the above quote "all aspects of our experience are in constant flux and change".    -  And my explanation accommodates the use of the word 'static' by specifying "processes ... that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern".  Here it is in full:

'Static patterns of value' are repetitive processes, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, 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 of value have no independent, inherent existence.  Further, these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern of life history.'


> But we both know that'll never happen. You'll just play some weasel game again, as usual. I could set my watch by it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to explain and justify my understanding of static patterns of value. Comments like "word salad" and "weasel game" are typical of your style, but hardly worthy of serious discussion.  


Marsha