[MD] Definitions.

[david buchanan]

Marsha said to dmb:
... I have pointed out many times, 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.

dmb says:
Yes, I know you keep saying that over and over and over again. But that means nothing. It is contradictory no matter how many you say it. 


Marsha said:
If you are so concerned with dictionary definitions, why don't you lookup 'quality' and 'value' and see if it mentions either as being the foundation of reality, or it mentions the "first cut" of either being into static and dynamic aspects.


dmb says:
I'm concerned with the definitions of these terms simply because you are misusing these terms. Misuse of the terms is the issue and so standard definitions of those terms becomes important. 

To say that Quality or value is the foundation of reality is not to define Quality, which is prohibited by the MOQ anyway. It is a metaphysical claim and dictionaries just don't help us with something that. My criticism is much more basic. It's about using words badly. It's about contradictory sentences. It's about using words to mean the opposite of what they mean every other speaking of English. It's not about mysticism. It's just about grammar. 

Marsha said:
So right from the get-go, with the Metaphysics of Quality, we are beyond standard dictionary definitions. Philosophy often requires refining terminology.

dmb says:
Your contradictions are quite the opposite of "refining" the terminology. You are confusing and conflating the terminology. It is Quality itself that "is essentially outside definition" but metaphysics isn't like that. In the same breathe, Pirsig also says that there is no metaphysics or any kind of reasoning without definitions. In the same breathe, he says "metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition". He says this in several different ways. "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them." (Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.) "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics." (Pirsig in Lila, page 64.) You're incorrectly and quite irrationally using the undefinable nature of Dynamic Quality to defy the meaning of ordinary, definable concepts. DQ does not grant anyone permission to spew contradictory nonsense. The mystic reality is not definable but that doesn't prohibit us from defining our terms or being clear about what concepts mean. 

You have no idea how confused you've made all this. No idea. It's a complete train wreck and there is no way it could make sense to anyone who knows what they're talking about. Apparently, you're not even understanding what the topic is. I keep complaining about contradictory phrases and you keep talking about anything but that. But that's okay. I'm not really talking to you anymore. I'm just talking ABOUT you to others. Why? Because you just can't hear what I'm saying anyway, so why should I bother?