[MD] Definitions.

[david buchanan]

Dave to DMB:
...If "static patterns of value" or "deductions" change, it is misleading or confusing to "characterized [them] by a fixed or stationary condition", "static."  Additionally it is Pirsig's error not Marsha's.


Arlo replied:
..., I don't think there is anyone who is confused or feels misled by the terms "static" or "stable". And I don't think, apart from this small group, anyone worries that 'static' or 'stable' means 'fixed' or 'stationary' or 'unchanging'. These are characterizations made by an S/O absolutism. "Stable" means stable, it doesn't need a paragraph of antonyms to rescue it from SOM. And these errors are Marsha's (and apparently yours), not Pirsig's or DMB's.   "Stable pattern" is redundant, but it draws emphasis to the primary salient characteristic of a 'pattern'; persistence (or stability, or staticness, etc.). In fact, a pattern that was truly "ever changing" would not even *be* a pattern, and by definition would not exist.


dmb says:
That's right, if static patterns really were ever-changing then we would be contradicting ourselves to also call them "static", "stable" or "patterns". It doesn't take a fancy theory to see that Marsha and Dave are defending contradictory nonsense - in defiance of the evidence from Pirsig's books and in defiance of the English language. 

There is another very basic and obvious way in which this ridiculous assertion doesn't make sense. If the meaning of static patterns (words, concepts, definitions) were truly ever-changing then how could they mean the same thing twice? How would anyone know what the words and ideas in this sentence meant when I wrote it, as opposed to the time you read it? How would I be able to read a book from 1991, 1974 or 1910? Without knowing it, Marsha mocks her own foolishness every time she uses a word or writes a sentence. 

It's a good thing these guys are just confused. If Dave were right, the intellectuals would surely be coming around to take him away. You know, because the MOQ gives smart people the right to kill the stupid. That's what Dave Thomas thinks, anyway.