[MD] Definitions.

[Hamilton Priday]

Greetings Horse, Marsha, DMB, and All --

As an Essentialist who believes that Value is man's link to Essence, I would 
be remiss in letting last week's discussion pass without comment.

On 23/02/2013 09:18, MarshaV wrote:
>
> One definition I provide is concerning 'self'.  If one asks:  What is the 
> relationship between the individual and static quality?  I'd answer: "The 
> “self” is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and 
> impermanent static patterns: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, 
> social patterns and intellectual patterns of value flowing in the
> infinite field of Dynamic Quality."
>
> My definition of static patterns of value is of repetitious and 
> ever-changing process:
>   Static patterns of value are repetitive processes, conditionally 
> co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, that
> pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable 
> pattern.  Within the MoQ, these patterns are morally categorized into a 
> four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure:  inorganic, biological, 
> social and intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative 
> to other patterns:  patterns depend upon (exist relative to) innumerable 
> causes and conditions (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) parts 
> and the collection of parts (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) 
> conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent 
> existence.  Further, these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an 
> individual's static pattern of life history.

DavidB replied:
>
> 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.

Horse then stepped in with an intention to clarify:
>
> 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?
> 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.
> If something is ever-changing then it tends to be unstable and/or chaotic.
> Patterns of value that are stable persist over time which would appear to 
> be the antithesis of your definition.
>
> 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.

I think there IS a semantic problem with Pirsig's terminology which this 
group is too "politically correct" to acknowledge.  I also think it stifles 
philosophy to claim that an idea or theory -- even an intuitive concept that 
can't
be experienced -- is incapable of definition.

Marsha is on the right track when she says, "My definition of static value 
is of repetitious and ever-changing process."  ALL existence (beingness) is 
process because it it is experienced as differentiated events that occur 
sequentially in time and space.  And "process" (by dictionary definition) is 
"a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a 
particular result."   Doesn't that define the life-experience of an 
individual in a relational world?   So all this talk about "static value" 
really applies only to the particular "patterns" or "principles" by which we 
intellectualize relational values.

Until you can appreciate the unbounded, unconditional status of absolute 
Oneness, there will always be something more appealing about a "dynamic" 
than a "static" characterization of Value, which I suspect was Pirsig's 
motive for coining 'DQ'.  But the value-experience itself is a DYNAMIC 
process, whether its metaphysical source is static or not.  (As some of you 
know, I happen to believe in an uncreated, immutable source that transcends 
space/time and creates by negation.)  And, while I've always held Pirsig's 
concept of primary Value in high regard, it is becoming increasingly more 
apparent that the "static/dynamic" terminology as applied to Quality is an 
impediment to full comprehension of the author's ontology.

Thanks for taking this critical issue out of the closet and into the light 
of frank discussion.

Cheers and best wishes,
Ham