[MD] Definitions.

[X Acto]

Dave T,
Please note the original criticism:

From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org> 
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Definitions.

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 (snipped for relevency)

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 way. (addition
of "way" for meaning)(snipped for relevency)

[Ron inserts]
Dave T, note that Dave B. re-establishes his criticism of the use of the phrase "ever-changing
static patterns " as a clear, precise definition simply because it is a contradiction in terms and
contradictions are seldom very clear in terms of meaning.

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. 

[Ron inserts]
Dave T, note you just said that your knowledge (what you know to be true) gained by dynamic
quality, (empirical knowledge) is more dynamic than abstract (intellectual) concepts.
Dave B agrees but re-states that this is not the bone of contention.


DmB re-states:
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".(snipped for relevency)
 It doesn't make any more sense if you substitute "stable". You still get the same contradiction in terms. 

[Ron concludes]
The context of the criticism is contradiction in terms, therefore a contradiction in meaning. 
Unclear, "interpretive" definitions are less useful and therefore of lower value than clear precise
definitions and meaning. "everchanging-static" falls into that catagory of contradiction.

This is why Dave B. asserts the criticism that you are not a careful reader and are not addressing
the original criticism (contradiction in meaning regarding definition) in context and implies that
you need to work on your critical thinking skills.

I think your most recent posts have indeed reflected that.

Now if you can make the case that contradiction is more meaningful than clarity and precision
in the context of definition I think we would all be very interested in hearing it. 


..

...