[MD] Why William James?

[david buchanan]

On February 20th 2013, David Buchanan wrote:Here is Marsha's (incorrect and incoherent) definition/explanation of static patterns of value: Static patterns of value are repetitive processes, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing... 
Ant McWatt commented:No, not in LILA they're don't.  In the MOQ of LILA, static patterns don't change.


On Mar 6, 2013, david buchanan wrote:

Static patterns are static and they're patterned no matter how many times she [Marsha] uses the phrase "ever-changing static patterns". In a hundred years, that will still be a stupid thing to say. 



Marsha replied:
If putting that on quotes was to signify it was a phrase I used, you are misrepresenting for a reason I cannot fathom.  My explanation/definition of static patterns of value is: 
 -- Static patterns of value are repetitive processes, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, [snip]
And I use the term 'ever-changing' because patterns of value are both static AND ever-changing as I have explained many times. ...


dmb says:

You deny the phrase "ever-chaning static patterns" as a misrepresentation of your view and then immediately go on to TWICE describe static patterns as ever-changing. And you do it again a third time below. Why deny it? That denial only serves to make you look dishonest. Is this some kind of sick joke, of what? 

And how can you fail to see the contradiction in that phrase? How can anyone fail to see that the phrase is nonsense? It is an absurdly impossible idea. How can anything be stable and constantly changing at the same time? It simply makes no sense. 

Marsha tried to explain it:
Each time a pattern momentarily interacts with consciousness it is different than the time before, and if you have an experience with a pattern in any other way than as an interaction with consciousness, please explain how that happens. [...] My explanation/definition is meant to point as far away from 'inherently existing' as possible.  I think that that is most important.  That static patterns of value are ever-changing agrees with my experience, which not confused with the static representation of words on a page.

dmb says:
As to the first sentence, I don't have to explain how that happens because I'm denying that any such thing ever happens. I think you asking me a totally meaningless question, i.e., the question is predicated on a misunderstanding. It is SOM that makes a distinction between consciousness and its content. it is SOM posits a thinker that has the thoughts. That's the Cartesian self, the inherently existing mental substance that the MOQ rejects. In the MOQ, patterns don't interact with consciousness because they ARE consciousness. You ARE those patterns. And if they were ever-changing your body would fly apart or disintegrate and there'd be no such thing as culture, thought or speech. There is no consciousness apart from the patterns. That's what Pirsig says. That's what process philosophy says. That's what Buddhism says. That's what James says. That's another important idea that you don't get, apparently.

"Without DQ the organism cannot grow. Without static quality the organism cannot last. Both are needed." (Lila 147) 

"The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a “self” that is independent of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns. There is no “self” that contains these patterns. These patterns contain the self." (Pirsig in Lila's Child)

As to your second sentence, huh? How do you figure that "ever-changing" points away from "inherent existence"? What does it mean to say that "ever-changing" agrees with your experience and should be confused with words on a page? Nobody but you has access to the former and I fail to see why anyone should care about that anyway. This whole thing is about the words you keep putting on the page? I'm talking about the meaning of Pirsig's ideas precisely because you are using his terms incorrectly, using them in a way that is logically impossible. 

"Quality [DQ] is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable, and knowable [sq], or there isn't any metaphysics." 

"The static language of the Metaphysics of Quality will never capture the Dynamic reality of the world but some fingers point better than others and as the world changes, old pointers and road maps tend to lose their value."

"Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them." (Emphasis Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.)

That's all I'm talking about here. We want to be clear about the meanings and definitions of the MOQ's key terms. If we don't get that right, then we cannot properly reason about the MOQ. If we don't get that right, and you are definitely NOT getting it right, then nothing after that will make any sense. Without that, your rocket will just explode on the launch pad and the mission has failed before it ever started.