[MD] Definitions.

[david buchanan]

David Thomas 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 commented:
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 says:
I don't think I agree with DT there and picked a bone with that already, actually. I think it's a mistake to think of "static" in physicalist terms like that. A wheel in motion is still a wheel and it's still static in that sense. If it weren't static, it would fall apart and you'd crash your bike or car or whatever. A defined thing doesn't become dynamic just because it is set in motion. The patterns of growth and development in all life forms are also "stable" in this sense. Eating, breathing, running or whatever does not make anyone Dynamic in the Pirsigian sense but only in a very trivial and literal sense. Dynamic and static aren't about what's moving or not. It's the distinction between experiential flux and the conceptual order. The flux is ever-changing and dynamic with the order is stable and persistent.  


Ron concluded:
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. ...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.



dmb says:
Yea, thanks Ron. That's pretty much how I see it and it goes double for Marsha, whose definition is at issue here. 
I'd qualify that a bit, however. I have no problem with interpretations and they're impossible to avoid even if you wanted to. I'm just opposed to nonsense and contradictory in general and in this particular case the terms being used so badly are the most crucial terms of all. This kind of nonsense obscures and muddies the very thing we're here to discuss (The MOQ).

It's tragic because it's so pointless. It's like a diabolical stink bomb of stupidity, one designed to ruin any chance of anyone learning anything about the MOQ.