Before I begin, can you please summarise how you understand what it is that I'm saying? You seem to be angry with me but I have no way of actually knowing what it is that you actually think I am saying. I don't mind rudeness even though, believe it or not, I spend great care and a lot of hours on my posts. I get that Philosophy isn't for the feint of heart. If you want to summarise what you think it is I am saying then I think it will be easier(at least it will be for me) for us to communicate. Otherwise it seems we're just shouting at each other for no reason. Regardless, I will start my post by giving you the same courtesy...
The way I understand what your writing philosophically is that you're inadvertently conflating static quality with 'relative' and 'change' because you figure 'Dynamic Quality will change things anyway'. But I think that this is a mistake because Dynamic Quality isn't some thing to be made static in this unintentional way. I argue that static quality is more static than change or 'relative'. That is, without Dynamic Quality, static quality will get old and die. But that is not to say, as you accuse me of, that static quality doesn't change. It does. But without Dynamic Quality static quality gets old and dies.
To be sure, here is a quote from Pirsig which says this much:
"Until now he had always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that which does not change cannot live... Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other." -Lila p59
>> You can prove this logically. There is no distinction between A or B if you cannot say how either of them is different in the absence of the other.
> And where does the saying that there is a difference come from? How does that recognition happen? Where is your logical proof?
How do we recognise that there is a difference from one thing to another? As I have said, my proofs are experience. First we notice something and how high or low a quality it is. Then we can compare this quality to something else. If we never distinguish a difference between A and B, then there isn't an A or B. It's only when we notice a difference between A or B, that is, when something is distinguishable in the absence of the other thing.
>>>> To this you may respond. "Of course without Dynamic Quality, static quality gets old and dies. That's why I insist on everything being relative and static quality being impermanent.' But let me repeat. Static quality in the absence of Dynamic Quality gets old and dies. It doesn't get better. It doesn't improve. It gets old and dies. You cannot use word tricks, or mind tricks to get around this. You cannot 'outwit' Dynamic Quality. Because Dynamic Quality isn't anything. See?
>>> I don't see. And I wonder how you can know this or prove it?
>> One can only 'prove' this via analogy. Dynamic Quality isn't something you can prove intellectually, it's something you experience. For a book full of such analogies I point you do the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. Or, Steve Hagen, whom I know you read already.
> Your analogy is an analogy? Where's the proof you say that you can present? You did say you would present a proof, didn't you? Well, where is the proof?
Okay well now it's very clear that you're frustrated. Being that I'm the philosophical type, I'll go out on a limb here and say that's because I have asked you to prove something and from this you've gone ahead and thrown me in a basket with those scientific deterministic types who like absolute definitions of things. By continually asking me to prove something you're making the point that there is no fundamental 'proof' in scientific land. But I've got no real way of know because you never actually summarise back to me what you think I'm saying.
I agree with you Marsha. In SOM, scientific land, there are no absolutes. SOM isn't grounded in anything. There are no morals, we can do or say what we like because there's actually no reason to do anything at all. To be sure, there are no absolutes in the MOQ either. Quality changes. But that doesn't mean that we can say that static quality is 'change'. It isn't. Pirsig broke Quality into static quality and Dynamic Quality for a reason. He split it up because he knew that ultimately we can't define anything as you seem to allude to by continually asking me to 'prove' something. So he said, okay, ultimately we can't define anything, but here we are. Alive. Defining things. "Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life." So he made his Very first division. The first division of the Metaphysics and he said. 'See there.. that's Dynamic Quality. That can't be defined. That's a concept which cannot be defined. But here I am defining thing
s. That's static quality. I can define that as much or as little as I like. But it's all definitions. All fixed, static definitions.'
> Is this suppose to make sense? There is no proof here. Please try again? Like, can you explain what you mean by 'absolute' in MoQeze?
As I've said. In the MOQ there are no SOM, things in themselves, absolutes. Looking at some definitions of 'absolute'
1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. something that is conceived or that exists independently and not in relation to other things; something that does not depend on anything else and is beyond human control; something that is not relative; "no mortal being can influence the absolute"
These 'could' be synonyms for Dynamic Quality, but I have an issue with this term because it suggests that it cannot change.
>> You have said that in order for truth to exist it must be relative. I disagree with this because, as I've said, you needn't think of two truths in order for the first one to exist.
> I have said that static patterns, like the Buddhist's "conventional (relative) truths", are relative. Within the MoQ static patterns can be ranked by their function: inorganic, biological, social or intellectual. I asked you to define what you mean by two truths?
Two truths. See the dictionary on true and then think of two of them. :-)
>> To prove something is to provide an example - being that the MOQ is pure empiricism. This answer seems to confirm my suspicion that you don't know how to prove that relativity is important. Or can you?
> That's radical empiricism, Bubba. Do you want to discount my experience?
> You haven't provided any proofs.
I have explained empirically that, before anyone makes a distinction between this or that quality, they make a distinction of the high or lowness of that quality. The level of the quality first. That doesn't need to be in relation to anything.
>> On the basis that you have said that truth must be relative for it to exist. I don't need to think about two patterns and their 'relativity' in order to know they exist. They exist regardless of how relative these things are.
> Sorry, but this doesn't make sense, and it certainly isn't a proof. Is it whatever you think? Are you pretending to be rational?
Ive explained empirically what happens above.
>> How do I know that patterns don't need to be 'relative' for them to exist? From experience, as I've said already.
> Prove to me that patterns are independent based on your experience, because my experience has patterns existing relative to other patterns.
I've explained why empirically patterns don't have to exist relative to other patterns. You certainly can compare one pattern to another, my experience shows me this as well. But in order for patterns to exist this isn't necessary.
Or to think of this another way... Think of a first pattern. It doesn't need to exist in relation to another pattern to exist does it? If that's the case how did it exist to begin with?
>>> How do you know patterns exist to be able to say they exist?
>> From experience. Patterns are a fundamental part of the MOQ. The MOQ is the best description of reality there is and so therefore, patterns exist.
> Please define what a pattern is within the MoQ?
Some thing. Any thing.
>>> Can you prove patterns are independent?
>> Yes, logically as I have shown above.
> No, you have not logically shown anything of the kind... Define what the term logic means to you within the MoQ?
Here we go with the 'proving' . As I explained above, I'm not a SOM absolutist. The fundamental proof is quality. If you want to make a point please just come out and say it rather than try and make it by asking many questions, please? I'm beginning to wonder why I'm taking your questions seriously but I'll press on answering those that I think may have had some sincerity to them.
>>> How do you know a pattern is better than nothing? What can you tell me about nothing?
>> Obviously I can't tell you anything about nothing. I'm alive and happy to be so. Being alive is better than nothing, or you don't think so?
> How can you state a pattern is better than nothing when don't know anything about nothing? That doesn't seem very rational?
I didn't say I don't know anything about nothing, I just said I can't tell you about nothing. Surely you know what the term 'nothing' means? If you're not sure about a term look at the dictionary please Marsha?
>>> What do you mean by harmony?
>> Harmony is a synonym for quality.
> Where is the quote that states this? Or is that your synonym?
"The harmony (i.e. Quality) it produces among the elements of our existing understanding." - RMP - Lila's Child.
> You did not present proofs, unless you consider a proof to be what ever you think.
> Beethoven's music is full of dissonance. I find Beethoven's music quite wonderful, too.
Ultimately a 'proof' anyone ever says is whatever they say because there cannot be any other 'proof'. It must be written down to 'prove' something. But what we're talking about here is both my and your experience.
> Please provide the url for your definition. I'd like to read the full definition.
>> Yes. Think of something, anything. Eventually it will get old and die. These words which we are using, the iPad you're reading this from, you and I, every thing gets old and dies. There isn't something which exists which won't do this. That is my proof.
> Changes,,, is in constant transition. Ever-changing...
Yes, and I don't claim that static quality doesn't change. It does.
>> Yes. Opinion. Everything anyone has ever said is opinion. Just some opinions are better than others.
> Your opinions are not presented with any rational explanation. Please prove the logic behind your opinion.
I've talked about this sarcasm above..
>>> How do you know the MoQ would be destroyed?
>> Because DQ is a fundamental division of the MOQ. A division which provides its strength. The MOQ is open to being replaced by something better.
> In what sense is that fundamental division real?
In the sense that quality is fundamental.
>> No, by destroying the MOQ I mean that it significantly lowers its quality and turns the undefined quality of the MOQ into the defined.
> I agree Dynamic Quality shouldn't be defined. Would you ever know if the value of the MoQ was lowered? How would you know? Please explain what the MoQ is? How do you know? Did someone tell you?
More sarcasm which I've already talked about.
>> What this means is that, as I've stated previously, you seem to be trying to get around Dynamic Quality by including 'change' as part of your definition of static quality.
> No. I see static quality as process; that is change. I have nothing at all to say about Dynamic Quality. I have not defined it as change.
As I've said at the top, this destroys the Metaphysics of Quality because, like it or not, picking up bar ladies and writing metaphysics are a part of life. These are fixed, defined things. Ultimately, you're right, we can't define anything. We always get it wrong. Things change. So why bother? But I'll say it again. Doing fixed, static things like picking up bar ladies and writing metaphysics are a part of life.
>> Trying to 'outwit' Dynamic Quality. But static quality isn't 'change'. It is 'fixed' more than it changes. When it's independent of DQ; it's so fixed it cannot adapt and gets old and dies. It's called static quality for a reason.
> This doesn't even begin to make sense. Please explain. Fixed relative to change??? Is that what you are trying to say? Static patterns, at the very least, as you have said, get old and die. Is that not change? Can you describe that process. Is it just two steps: old & dead?
Hopefully after everything I've written in this post you now have a better idea of my position. I don't claim that static patterns don't change. But doing fixed, static things like picking up bar ladies... you get the point.
>> I know that you agree with me on this. And that's cool. However, as I've said I still think that you are inadvertently destroying DQ by trying to include 'change' as part of your definition of static quality. Yes, the concept of change is static quality, just along with everything else. But static quality itself is more static than change. Hence the name.
> OMG, here you go again, "more static than change"? Change 'more' or 'less' relative to what? And what does naming mean to you? What does a name represent? Are you like dmb who equates patterns with dictionary definitions? Hahahahaha.
Yes, I must agree with dmb if he thinks that naming something defines it statically. This is where you and I disagree. I would like to know more about your position on naming things. Do you not agree with this?