[MD] Definitions.

[david buchanan]

 Horse wrote:
I've got to say that I agree with DMB about the contradiction of terms within your definition of self. If something is static or stable how can it be ever-changing?


Marsha replied:
Patterns may maintain a static, stable identity at the same time as they and their context are undergoing constant change.


dmb says:
Notice how Marsha's response to this criticism is to simply repeat the contradiction that drew criticism in the first place? 

It makes no sense to say patterns maintain a stable identity AND that patterns undergo CONSTANT change. Obviously, stability and constant change are opposites but Marsha is saying both of those things at the same time. Think of the Ship of Theseus, or a parade (Hume) where everyone drops out but is replaced so that the parade is maintained, or the body with its cells constantly being replaced... 

Horse said:
If something is static or stable it tends not to change over time or if it does change it changes slowly, thus retaining it's stability.


Marsha replied:
RMP is known as a Process philosopher, and process is change.  Within the interaction with an individual, a pattern is constantly changing as the context changes and each pattern event rolls back into itself to be renewed.  But maybe read the essay on Whitehead and Pirsig by Andrew Sneddon.  Value is all about activity.

dmb says:
The same contradiction appears yet again. While it's true that the MOQ can rightly be called a form of process philosophy, this does not mean that it's okay to assert contradictory nonsense and it certainly doesn't work as a way to deny the importance of William James's pragmatism or radical empiricism within the MOQ. In fact, James is considered to be among the founders of that school too. Robert Richardson, James's biographer, puts it like this...

"Alfred North Whitehead attributed to James 'the inauguration of a new state in philosophy,' and he explicitly contrasted "Does Consciousness Exist" to Descartes' Discourse on Method: 'James clears the stage of the old paraphernalia; or rather he entirely alters its lighting'. James's radical empiricism was an integral part of the early-twentieth century revolution that swept through politics, thought, and sensibility. Technical and abstract though the two essays may be, they mark the modern abandonment of certain aspects of classical Western philosophy. James transfers our attention FROM SUBSTANCE  TO PROCESS, from a concept of self to the process of selving, from the concepts of truth to the process of truing, from a trust in concepts to an interest in percepts or perceptions. James is arguing that it is relations between things that matter, not objects or subjects as such. If by relativism we mean evaluating things by their relations to other things, then this is relativism, though the better term is relationism. The result of James's radical empiricism is to move the modern mind away from 17th century Cartesian dualism and toward what we can call process philosophy; to wean us away from falling back on conceptions and to encourage us to trust our perceptions; to admit feelings to full standing, along with ideas, as aspects of rationality."


Horse said:
Patterns of value that are stable persist over time which would appear to be the antithesis of your definition.



Marsha replied:
I stress ever-changing because I like the Buddhist perspective, but it would be the same within process philosophy. 

dmb says:
There is nothing wrong with bringing in Buddhism or process philosophy. The problem is you incoherent, contradictory claim about static patterns. Why are you pretending that logical errors don't matter? Do you imagine that Buddhism gives us permission to say stupid things? Does process philosophy give you an exemption from the basic rules of grammar. Do either of them grant you immunity from the improper use of terms? No, of course not. Mentioning these things is an irrelevant smoke screen. When the fog clears your contradictory nonsense will still be sitting there untouched, just as ugly and wrong as before. 



Horse said:
If you insist that static patterns of value are ever changing - i.e. stable patterns are unstable - would you mind showing how you manage to overcome what appears to be an inconsistency in your definition. I think I see what you're getting at but this part of your definition just doesn't appear to make sense and repeating it over and over offers no explanation.

Marsha replied:
I suppose it is my poor attempt at defending my position when it is being attacked.  I am not attacking anyone and invite other perspectives.  I realize different points-of-view will appeal to different people. 


dmb says:
As I see it, contradictory nonsense doesn't really count as a position. In order to see the contrast between two rival positions, both of those perspectives have to be intelligible enough to determine what they actually are. A meaningless string of words is not a position or a perspective from your meaningless salad of words. Beyond the contradictions, your definition is also excessively verbose, redundant, grammatically incorrect and totally unfocused. It's a piece of hackery from which no intelligible point of view can be discerned. How can such a thing appeal to any person?


When static patterns are defined as ever-changing, the element of stability is totally eliminated from the MOQ and would result in a rather disastrous situation in which chaos and degeneracy reign supreme. The MOQ's evolutionary morality goes right out the window. The static pattens that make up the self are put into flux so that the self would dissolve or evaporate. But in fact the whole system of morality depends on competing static values, the conflict between static values. The difference good and evil would be erased. Without this stability, it would be impossible to tell the difference between intellectual values and childish hedonism, the difference between human rights and fascist genocide would just be a matter of taste. 

The fact that Marsha is totally unconcerned with the stable and the static only shows a profound ignorance as to the larger situation in which we find ourselves. 

"Where has he been during this whole century? That's what this whole century's been about, this struggle between intellectual and social patterns. That's the theme song of the twentieth century. Is society going to dominate intellect or is intellect going to dominate society? And if society wins, what's going to be left of intellect? And if intellect wins what's going to be left of society? That was the thing that this evolutionary morality brought out clearer than anything else. Intellect is not an extension of society any more than society is an extension of biology. Intellect is going its own way, and in doing so at war with society, seeking to subjugate society, to put Society under lock and key. An evolutionary morality says it is moral for intellect to do so, but it also contains a warning: Just as a society that weakens its people's physical health endangers its own stability, so does an intellectual pattern that weakens and destroys the health of its social base also endanger its own stability.
Better to say "has endangered." It's already happened. This has been a century of fantastic intellectual growth and fantastic social destruction. The only question is how long this process can keep on."

"First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the social order over biological life-conventional morals -proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft and the like. Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the intellectual order over the social. What was emerging was that the static patterns that hold one level of organization together are often the same patterns that another level of organization must fight to maintain its own existence. Morality is not a simple set of rules. It's a very complex struggle of conflicting patterns of values. This conflict is the residue of evolution. As new patterns evolve they come into conflict with old ones. Each stage of evolution creates in its wake a wash of problems.
It's out of this struggle between conflicting static patterns that the concepts of good and evil arise. Thus, the evil of disease which the doctor is absolutely morally committed to stop is not an evil at all within the germ's lower static pattern of morality. The germ is making a moral effort to stave off its own destruction by lower-level inorganic forces of evil." (Lila Ch 13) 

Ultimately, Marsha's attitude is hateful and irresponsible and amoral. And the actual conceptual content is just incoherent drivel. It's an embarrassment. What did Robert Pirsig ever do to Marsha such that she would abuse his work like this? What did the English language ever do to deserve this torture?