[MD] Sympathy for the Devil

[MarshaV]

dmb,

Perhaps you do not understand the term 'insignificant'.  I have no need of your agreement or disagreement, approval or disapproval, rejection or acceptance, or anything else.  -  As far as I understand RMP's first cut it is between Dynamic Quality and static quality.  Dynamic Quality being indeterminate: indivisible, undefinable and unknowable - unpatterned; not ever-changing.  If you choose to use different terms, like empirical flux and conceptual order, please do.  Use whatever phrase pleases you, I doubt that will make you any more impressive.  Your opinion is one among many, and as I have stated before, I do not consider your understanding of the MoQ deeper than the ink on a page.  Though I always appreciate a good RMP quote.

My definition of the 'self' and explanation work for me.  It's not my concern if they do not work for you.  I have nothing to win or lose either way; I am not here for that reason; I won't play that game.  

So once more for the record:

I understand the“self” as a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static patterns value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. 

It is not anti-intellectual or a contradiction to understand that patterns may maintain a static, stable identity at the same time as they and their context are undergoing constant change. Think of the Ship of Theseus, or a parade (Hume) where everyone drops out but is replaced so that the parade is maintained, or the body with its cells constantly being replaced...  Above all  (the MoQ being in agreement with Radical Empiricism) this definition agrees with my experience.   



Marsha




On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:21 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Marsah  said:
> Poor dmb, you seem to be one of those characters that cannot present an intellectual idea unless pushing against an imaginary "fiercest rival" with imaginary misrepresentations.  Will you may consider me your fiercest rival, but it is difficult for me to consider you anything but insignificant.
> 
> dmb says:
> Well, yes, I'm definitely pushing back against the bogus statements made in this discussion forum but your attempt to dismiss this as a personality trait or character flaw is not just a bogus ad hominem argument. Considering the context, it's also ridiculous. Pushing back with counter arguments is not just appropriate, it's an obligation you are failing to meet. It's just the same old, same old, pattern; insult and evade. Pick any word you want from my thesaurus; polemics, argumentation, debate, contention, disputation, discussion, dialogue, disagreement, rivalry or fight. That's just part of the game, one you cannot or will not play. If you understand my complaints and respond by addressing them, then we are having a discussion. Unless you're capable and willing to do that, you shouldn't even bother to respond. It's like calling someone on the phone to tell them you can't talk right now. It's just kind of pointless and worthless. 
> Once again I've made a case and defeated your claims with textual evidence. As I see it, these complaints have been explained many, many times but they have never been properly addressed. And so they still stand, regardless of your personal attitude toward me. That's just irrelevant. (There is a recent study that shows how the skills to BE competent intellectually are the very same skills that allow one to MAKE JUDGEMENTS about the same competence in others. Interesting, eh?)
> 
> I did read your recent response to my complaints about your contradictory phrase "ever-changing static patterns" but I was discouraged by the slippery, uncomprehending nature of it. It wasn't a proper response to the criticism, as I see, and in fact began with an absurd denial. You denied the phrase itself ("ever-changing static patterns") as a distortion of you claim. It's not a distortion unless sentences work differently in your world. It's just an extraction from your claim. The phrase is simply meant to focus on the point of contention. The phrase includes only the contradictory terms because contradiction is the problem. The other terms from you definition of the self have been omitted simply because they are not in contention at the moment. Duh! Why do I even have to defend such common practice to repeatedly make such an obvious point? Jeez! 
> 
> Do you really not see how "ever-changing" and "static" are opposed? Do you really not see the contradiction in defining by opposite terms? Do you really think it matters whether or not those opposed terms are right next to each other in the sentence or not? Are you kidding me? Is it less contradictory to say, "liquid blue ice" than to say "liquid ice"? If I complained about the contradiction between "liquid" and "ice", would you dismiss the complaint because I omitted the irrelevant term "blue"?
> 
> The other part of your response was a fuzzy retreat into mysticism and paradox. Those are worthy areas of discussion but hardly fitting for the defense of a definition and it certainly doesn't grant anyone permission to be simply contradictory.
> 
> And this is not such a small thing when you consider what terms are being used in this contradictory way; the MOQ's central terms. This is not just a complaint about bad sentences, logical errors, or even your definition of the self, although that's certainly where it begins. That's one way to get at problems that are actually quite large and central because they're so relevant to MOQ's first and most crucial distinctions.
> 
> Basically, Pirsig's first move is to distinguish the empirical flux from the conceptual order while your definition of the self describes the ordered half in terms of the fluxing half. Come on, Marsha, that's not just wrong, it's conspicuously and OBNOXIOUSLY wrong. How can you fail to see the problem here? Your denials have a twilight zone vibe to them, vaguely familiar and yet disturbingly bizarre. 
> 
> 
> 
>>