[MD] Definitions.

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Dave (T) Sorry to have missed this one (and the subsequent
exchanges) over two weeks ago ... you've saved me a lot of additional
responses.

Ad holmium ... I like it.

Ian

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:29 AM, David Thomas
<combinedefforts at earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 2/15/13 3:58 PM, "David Buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> David Thomas said to dmb:
>>  ...Now years later we hear via Ant that Pirsig, upon consideration, agrees
>> that "stable" really would have been a better choice.  And, What do you do?
>> Ignore it and keep frothing at the mouth with more and viler ad holmium
>> attacks.
>>
>>
>> dmb says:
>> What makes you think I have a problem with the term "stable"? I don't. That is
>> already what I take "static" to mean and have ofter said so in this forum.
>> I've been using "static" in my criticism of Marsha's contradictory definition
>> of the self just because that's the word she uses in a contradictory. The
>> arguments against this contradiction are in no way predicated on Marsha's
>> character or whatever. I'm attacking the contradiction, not Marsha personally.
>> It's certainly true that I personally do not like her but that is irrelevant
>> to the criticism. Asking somebody a question like, "when are you ever going to
>> grow up?" is, on the other hand, a perfect example of an ad hominem attack.
>> But more to the point...
>>
>> David Thomas also 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. But
>> that's just me. Oh and Marsha, and probably every other less pedant human than
>> you.
>>
>> The immature pedant (dmb) says:
>> Man, it just kills that this won't go away. It should have been resolved years
>> ago and it should have taken about two minutes.
>> There is a huge mistake in your assertion that I want to address but let me
>> just deal with the contradictory phrase first.
> D:
> The reason it won't go away is simple. You keep bring it back up. Pirsig,
> Ant, myself and others think that "stable", the way I defined it, is a
> better characterization than "static." Since it was Pirsig who made the
> characterization in the first place and later changed it. Might he not have
> some precedence? As far a Marsha coupling, "every changing" and "static
> patterns" One Pirsig gave her "Static Quality" to work with. Second since
> you have tried to bully her since she arrived, she has proven she will not
> be bullied and will keep giving as long as you receive.
>
>> Why is it contradictory to define the self with terms like "ever-changing
>> static patterns"? It simple. Anyone can see this just by looking at the
>> definition of "static".
> D:
>  Ok, what if we change this to, "every-changing stable patterns?" using
> these definitions.
>> Stable
>>> > a. Resistant to change of position or condition; not easily moved or
>>> > disturbed: a house built on stable ground; a stable platform.
>>> > b. Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation: a stable
>>> economy; a
>>> > stable currency.
>>> > c. Maintaining equilibrium; self-restoring: a stable aircraft.
>>
>>dmb
>> static |ˈstatik|adjective1 lacking in movement, action, or change, esp. in a
>> way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting :
> D:
> No I understand fully well what "static" is. It is characteristic of
> positions like you and Bo take and then rigorously restate over, and over,
> and over hoping that repetition will win the argument. One of the reasons I
> rarely post here anymore is just this kind of pedantry.
>
>> So Marsha contradictory wording basically means a "constantly changing lack of
>> change" or "always changing lack of change". It doesn't make any more sense if
>> you substitute "stable". You still get the same contradiction in terms.
>>
>> stable 1 |ˈstābəl|adjective ( -bler , -blest )not likely to change or fail;
>> firmly established :
> D:
> Here is a classic example. I post three DEFINITIONS of stable then in an
> effort to try and win an argument you go and find a forth one that sounds
> more "static".
>>
>> In either case "ever-changing" is crucial in understanding what "static" or
>> "stable" is not. Those terms are both literally defined in CONTRAST to change,
>> as lacking change, as resistance to change. It's okay to talk about the growth
>> and evolution of static patterns. That's why "stable" is probably a better
>> word - because "static" could be interpreted to mean completely frozen or
>> totally incapable of change. But I never read it that way. But "ever-changing"
>> is simply incorrect because it is the opposite of stable or static.
>>
>> But I've said this so many times that even I am sick of it. Do you really not
>> see the problem here? I'm not holding my breath.
>>
>> Your assertion, Dave, mixes up several issues at once. Not sure if I can
>> untangle it but I'll try. If I follow, you're okay with "ever-changing static
>> patterns" because your experience is filled with motion and movement. It seems
>> that you are misunderstanding the static as if it were the property of a
>> physical object, as in physics. That's not how Pirsig is using the word.
>> Static patterns are concepts, words, definitions and the like. In the MOQ,
>> even subjects and objects are secondary, they are concepts derived from
>> experience. Experience is the ever-changing part, concepts are the static
>> part.
>> I wonder if your phrase, "my knowledge of experience," betrays a confusion or
>> conflation of this very important distinction. The line between concepts and
>> reality is the MOQ's central distinction, is the line between static quality
>> and DQ.
> D:
> I originally typed "my experience" then added "knowledge of". Why? Because
> with the first you would have said something like "of course your experience
> is dynamic, in flux, static pattern are static." My knowledge of experience,
> Stable Quality, changes both in my memory and/or my reality overtime, or I
> misunderstand SQ. Which well I might.
>>
>> Pirsig quotes James on this point, thrilled that James had even used the exact
>> same terms:
>> "There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the
>> former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing."
>
> If SQ is only words, concepts, images, musical riffs and such that reside
> only in my head, in memory, I might buy they are static. Though even that
> ,given my memory, is surely not the case. Surely my memories of the
> experience "calculus" has changed since setting in a college classroom. I
> believe that one the primary value of concepts, words, memories is they are
> usefully. They lead us to and from stable patterns in our environment. My
> mental SQ "blueberry" may lead me to the stable pattern in my backyard at a
> certain time of year or to Walmart in the winter. But that stable pattern
> "blueberry" in my head doesn't have antioxidants and the one from Walmart
> are only stable for a short period of time before they they dynamically
> morph into compost. You may argue until your blue in the face that the
> stable pattern we commonly call "blueberries" is static, unchanging, but
> whether you eat them or not my experience has shown me they are in a
> constant flux even when I don't experience them.
>
>> "In the past Pheadrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality
>> alone and neglect static patterns of quality. ... But now he was beginning to
>> see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life cannot exist on Dynamic
>> Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality is to
>> cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by
>> studying what it is not rather that futilely trying to define what it is...
>> Slowly at first, and then with increasing awareness that he was going in a
>> right direction, Phaedrus' central attention turned away from any further
>> explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned to the static patterns themselves."
>>
>> "Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand
>> blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns,
>> nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic
>> progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom,
>> creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the
>> quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can
>> survive without the other."
>>
>> My criticism starts out as a simple problem of grammar and logic but this
>> contradictory phrase ends up having a very destructive effect on the content
>> of the philosophy. It confuses and conflates DQ (ever-changing) with static
>> quality. It conflates and confused the distinction between concepts and
>> empirical reality.
> D:
> I maintain that unless the concept “waterfall” leads me to a stable pattern
> in my empirical reality of “waterfall,” with the water ever changing and
> dynamically falling into the river below, it has no value.
>>
>> If you think these concerns are childish or petty, then you have misunderstood
>> what I'm saying.
>
>  Yes,Yes, and probably yes.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html