Well, you'd understand if only you'd read David Scott's pdf. You know, you should read the paper "carefully and repeatedly" to make the case for me because I cannot make it for myself. What a laugh!
I'm not interested you your complaints or your philosophologizing blarney. If you do not agree with me, too bad.
On Apr 29, 2012, at 10:57 AM, david buchanan wrote:
> Marsha said:
> My interpretation/experience of the “self” within the MoQ is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and conceptualized static patterns (dharma) of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. What could be clearer?
> dmb says:
> What could be less clear?
> Your "interpretation" of the self is an incoherent, contradictory, meaningless salad of words.
> Given the meaning of "ever-changing" and "static patterns", your interpretation is as logical as saying that static patterns are never static or patterned. Static patterns provide stability. They're not permanently frozen and are capable of change in response to DQ, which is an ever-changing flux, but static patterns are what hold a glass of water together, hold a nation together and that's what holds a person together.
> In short, you are blurring, confusing and conflating the MOQ first and most important distinction, the DQ/sq split.
> Also you are inventing a distinction between static patterns and conceptualized static patterns. I take this to mean that you don't understand that concepts are static patterns. How could we ever talk about anything if concepts were ever-changing? Language and meaning depend on a certain amount of stability. The dictionary is not our enemy. Illogic and inconsistency and improper use of terms, however, IS the enemy of intelligent conversation.
> Do you really not understand what "static" means? If you did, you'd be able to see that "ever-changing static patterns" is a contradiction in terms. It's like saying "flowing rigidity" or "hot coldness" or "dry wetness". It's just contradictory nonsense. It's conspicuously and obviously wrong.
> How can you fail to see such a glaring error?
> And that's just for starters. You're also using the Buddhist/Pirsigian critique of the self against the Buddhist/Pirsigian conception of the self. In other words, you are treating their solution as if it were the problem. This is deeply confused. Untangling that mess properly would take more time than I'm willing to give, but that's a huge problem. That's what Andre and I were trying to get at.