Heh. Works for me, though maybe not Lib. When does a car cease to be a car? When you take off the tires? When you remove the body panels? Take out the engine? When it’s nearly rusted apart? Before it’s assembled? “I don’t know, but I know it when I see it.” Ooh, how fuzzy and subjective. 
Spiritus
They? You mean I?
Okay, Spiritus. What do you mean by “credence”? When you say that you do not lend any particular credence, do you mean that you lend no particular credence, or that you lend no credence of any kind, or something else? When you say particular, how do you draw that line? What “particularizes” any one credence from another? And when you say “reasoning”, what do you mean? Reasoning of any kind, or reasoning of some particular kind. When you say “base” it on something, do you mean derive it, build it, borrow from it, or what? When you say “ambiguous”, to what degree? How do you quantify ambiguity? Which is more ambiguous, a cold day or a hot day? When you say “undefined”, undefined by whom or what? Isn’t every word, other than jabberwocky nonsense, defined in OED? And then, aren’t those words defined differently in different sources and some in different ways?
I expect a separate answer to each of the above questions, complete with an unabridged citation bibliography and full formal syllogisms.
It is remarkable that you think what other people do, use words as they are generally understood to form arguments and make points, is the essence of newage mysticism — even while you do it yourself.
Poly
Thanks, Poly.
Gaudere
If you are unable to answer that question, why should Spiritus give you license to use the word “car”?
Ah, but I can answer it–with my own subjective interpretation of the word “car”. And he can answer it as well, and our answers may be different. If we are using the word “car” as almost all people use it, to refer to a fully-functioning automotive vehicle, there is no problem with definition. If the thing we are talking about it a borderline “car”, we need to establish what each of us thinks a “car” is, and come to some sort of agreement, before we can have any hope of establishing whether a thing is a “car” or not for both of us.
Spiritus said:
Darn! And I wanted to borrow your Fortunate Son CD, too!
Gaudere
And I am using the word “gestalt” as it is commonly understood and plainly defined in the opening post.
For every ambiguity that you might assign the terms in that definition, I could assign equal ambiguity to the words in your, Spiritus’, or the general definition of the word “car”. I mean, gosh, the term “fully-functioning” alone could take us days to clear up.
…W. J. Clinton
Yet despite all this ambiguity, there arises a gestalt we call language.
Gosh, Lib. I am not even the one who has been critiquing your definitions on this thread. Feeling a bit thin-skinned, are we? (And by “we” here, I mean “you”.)
If you seriously think common deictionary definitions of words are suficient for all conversational contexts, why do you think philosophers, logicians and essayists often define terms within their works? If your purpose is to communicate, then you should not be upset at honest attempts to understand exactly what you are saying. I do not feel any of the posts on this thread were delivered in teh spirit of contrariness that was so evident in your parody above. If you have trouble expressing your ideas in it might be because those ideas are not yet clear in your own mind. Or it might be because the ideas themselves are abstruse and difficult to delineate concisely. Or it might be because your audience is too obtuse to comprehend your thoughts. I leave it as an exercise for each reader to decide which explanation is most applicable here.
BTW:
Have you missed the posts in this thread (and others) that addressed some of the different ways that the word gestalt is “commonly understood”?
Do you think that a “plain” definition is necessarily precise and useful?
newagerific: “containing properties that are indistinct yet powerful. Firmly yielding, able to metamorhosize without losing intrinsic character.”
Or perhaps you would like one from an actual dictionary:
tao: the ultimate principle of the universe.
There. Plain definitions. Surely, there can be no misunderstanding about what these words mean.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Look, if your best defintion of “gestalt” includes “I don’t know what it is exactly, but I know it when I see it”, why not say “gestalt” is a subjective perception on your part, much like the “carness” of a rusted heap? (I’m beginning to hate the word “gestalt”. A pity; I like the psychological usage.)
Bitch, bitch, bitch. I didn’t make any porridge.
BTW, Lib, in what way is does language demonstrate qualities that are not found in its component parts (words + syntax + grammar)?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Spiritus
I have defined gestalt for you fifty ways from Sunday. I’m beginning to think that you refuse me the dignity of a genuine debate simply because you enjoy sniping more.
I wouldn’t be.
Well, I guess there’s enough “contrariness” in so many threads that they are all blurring together.
Or it might be that I am having no trouble expressing my ideas.
What I am having trouble doing is getting you to express any idea other than words can be ambiguous. But as I have pointed out repeatedly, you use them anyway.
Have you missed the Opening Post?
This is why I think you’re sniping and contrary. A plain definition of a car is precise and useful, but a plain definition of gestalt isn’t. You know what? It’s beginning to dawn on me that if I had defined “car” using Gaudere’s words, and she had defined “gestalt” using my words, you (and she) would now be assailing me about my car definition, and holding up her gestalt definition as the example all should follow.
The words are clear enough. The intent is suspect.
Gaudere
How can you hate something so vague?
Well, separately the component parts are innocuous, but when we put them all together we can drive Lib up the wall. 
You ask the question as though you understand what I mean by gestalt, even as you feign a confusion about it.
::meekly:: Um, excuse me. I’ve been moving for that last couple of days and just reestablished internet accessiblity last night. I’ve got a few points to make / issues to address:
-
To be perfectly honest, I had never heard the term “gestalt” prior to reading this thread. I prefer the definition asserted by Webster because it lends to a metaphysical arguement (which is a passion of mine – metaphysics, that is). But when I found that the thread derailed into a derisive battle of definition I turned to the Oxford English Dictionary (the law of lexicography in my opinion). The OED does state that the term arouse from psychology and is perceptual in nature.
-
Debates like these with individuals such as the participants in this thread are the reason I became a member of the SDMB. Would it be permissible to either select the term “gestalt” with the perceptual definition or utilize Libertarian’s definition and put a word to the meaning in interest of the debate. I hate to see arguements such as these inferred or implied as personal attacks.
Anyway, I put my two cents in. I just enjoy the debate and would like to participate, but do what the collective you will.
Nen
I would love to discuss and debate all the aspects of gestalt. What is it? Does it exist? Is it natural or metaphysical? Does it have any theistic (or atheistic) implications? What are some examples of gestalt (like life), and what are some that seem like examples, but aren’t (like HUP)?
Regarding the origins of gestalt philosophy, Christian von Ehrenfels (1859-1932), an Austrian philosopher-psychologist, defined in 1890 the essential concept of Gestalt philosophy, which he called “Gestalt qualities”.
Von Ehrenfels said that a property is a “Gestalt quality” if it only can be present in a whole, but not in its elements. He used the example of a melody, which has musical properties that its separate notes cannot have.
Libertarian:
Is the von Ehrenfels definition of gestalt quality the “gestalt” you would like to debate? Let’s pick a definition.
Gestalt, in my opinion, is simply our ignorance. That is, I do not believe that there is anything truly greater than the sum of its parts. It seems like gestalt until we obtain sufficient knowledge.
A car to a cave man or a gorilla surely has gestalten! To us, it is banal: we can construct and de-construct its every element and nothing mystical is lost or gained along the way. It is fully explainable. There is no magical poof once that last piece of glass gets fitted.
Man and woman combine and nine months later. . .new life. It seems divine. A farmer in ancient Greece was mystically moved by this inexplicable union of bodies and juices. Now we understand genetics and biology and the mystical impact is lessening every day. Test tubes aren’t all that
divine. The spiritual to the rational.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
Nen
Yes, it’s fine. That definition, plus the definition in the Opening Post, plus all the other definitions you might find in all the dictionaries and jargon journals are just paraphrases of each other. Different ways to say the same thing. That’s one of the great (and horrible) things about language.
But don’t get lost in the minutia of the definitions of the terms in your definitions, or else you will lose sight of the whole definition.
I am just trying to establish an informal debate on the topic of gestalt in the hopes of, for one thing, clearing up just what gestalt is. But I don’t find all the Clintonesque definition of is stuff to be helpful.
We debated atheism and theism in one of the board’s best threads ever for over a month, and nobody ever pinned down a definition for God, even though I kept saying that it matters what you mean by God.
I think it matters what you mean by gestalt when you discuss it, but how can the notion of something being more than the sum of its parts befuddle so many smart people? Let’s discuss it and see if we can figure out what it is.
Sometimes, you don’t know what something is even though you’ve defined it, because you might not know the meanings of some of the terms in the definition, or else the gestalted definition might not make sense to you based on its component terms. (See Spiritus’ definition of Tao.)
Sake
I don’t see why there need be any mystical element of gestalt. What about von Ehrenfels’ example of a musical tune? Does it not have properties not found in the notes? Like melody, for example? Or harmony?
Lib, in the interest of civil discussion I will not respond in kind to your post above. I will simply note that anyone who wishes may read the posts in this thread and draw their own conclusions.
A tune has exactly one quality not found in the component notes: organization. In the past, you have resisted attempts to equate the gestalt with organization. Have you changed your position, or is this example less clear to me than it is to you?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*