[MD] Definitions.

[david buchanan]

David Thomas said to dmb:
 ...Now years later we hear via Ant that Pirsig, upon consideration, agrees that "stable" really would have been a better choice.  And, What do you do? Ignore it and keep frothing at the mouth with more and viler ad holmium attacks. 


dmb says:
What makes you think I have a problem with the term "stable"? I don't. That is already what I take "static" to mean and have ofter said so in this forum. I've been using "static" in my criticism of Marsha's contradictory definition of the self just because that's the word she uses in a contradictory. The arguments against this contradiction are in no way predicated on Marsha's character or whatever. I'm attacking the contradiction, not Marsha personally. It's certainly true that I personally do not like her but that is irrelevant to the criticism. Asking somebody a question like, "when are you ever going to grow up?" is, on the other hand, a perfect example of an ad hominem attack. 
But more to the point...

David Thomas also said:
In my world, stable every changing patterns of quality are sure closer to my knowledge of experience than ones that, "Have no motion; being at rest; quiescent or are fixed; stationary. The primary DEFINITIONS of STATIC. But that's just me. Oh and Marsha, and probably every other less pedant human than you.

The immature pedant (dmb) says:
Man, it just kills that this won't go away. It should have been resolved years ago and it should have taken about two minutes.
There is a huge mistake in your assertion that I want to address but let me just deal with the contradictory phrase first.

Why is it contradictory to define the self with terms like "ever-changing static patterns"? It simple. Anyone can see this just by looking at the definition of "static".

static |ˈstatik|adjective1 lacking in movement, action, or change, esp. in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting :

So Marsha contradictory wording basically means a "constantly changing lack of change" or "always changing lack of change". It doesn't make any more sense if you substitute "stable". You still get the same contradiction in terms. 

stable 1 |ˈstābəl|adjective ( -bler , -blest )not likely to change or fail; firmly established :

In either case "ever-changing" is crucial in understanding what "static" or "stable" is not. Those terms are both literally defined in CONTRAST to change, as lacking change, as resistance to change. It's okay to talk about the growth and evolution of static patterns. That's why "stable" is probably a better word - because "static" could be interpreted to mean completely frozen or totally incapable of change. But I never read it that way. But "ever-changing" is simply incorrect because it is the opposite of stable or static. 

But I've said this so many times that even I am sick of it. Do you really not see the problem here? I'm not holding my breath.

Your assertion, Dave, mixes up several issues at once. Not sure if I can untangle it but I'll try. If I follow, you're okay with "ever-changing static patterns" because your experience is filled with motion and movement. It seems that you are misunderstanding the static as if it were the property of a physical object, as in physics. That's not how Pirsig is using the word. Static patterns are concepts, words, definitions and the like. In the MOQ, even subjects and objects are secondary, they are concepts derived from experience. Experience is the ever-changing part, concepts are the static part.   
I wonder if your phrase, "my knowledge of experience," betrays a confusion or conflation of this very important distinction. The line between concepts and reality is the MOQ's central distinction, is the line between static quality and DQ.

Pirsig quotes James on this point, thrilled that James had even used the exact same terms:
"There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing."

"In the past Pheadrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. ... But now he was beginning to see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life cannot exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality is to cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather that futilely trying to define what it is... Slowly at first, and then with increasing awareness that he was going in a right direction, Phaedrus' central attention turned away from any further explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned to the static patterns themselves." 

"Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other." 

My criticism starts out as a simple problem of grammar and logic but this contradictory phrase ends up having a very destructive effect on the content of the philosophy. It confuses and conflates DQ (ever-changing) with static quality. It conflates and confused the distinction between concepts and empirical reality. 

If you think these concerns are childish or petty, then you have misunderstood what I'm saying.