Hi Ham Yes patterns change, that's the DQ we experience as the sea in which all static eddies come and go. In this sense DQ is a constant that underlies all patterns that simply come and go very dynamically. No problem with the use of the DQ/SQ concepts only a need to properly understand them.
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:58 AM Subject: Re: [MD] When is a pattern not static? > Hi Chris [Ron mentioned] -- > > I want to credit you, along with Ron and Ian, for helping me understand > the > MoQ ontology. But you've provided some additional thoughts on the > "details" > that I think are worth exploring -- if I may. > > Concerning Dynamic Quality as a name for what I regard as the fundamental > or > primary > source, you said: >> Of course it doesn't describe it properly - Dynamic Quality >> is merely the best word we have to describe something that >> is fundamentally indefinable =) >> The static patterns we can see - and the reason for the >> ongoing changes and fluxuations is that they are reacting to >> Dynamic Quality - which cannot be defined: rather like a >> black hole, we cannot observe it, only the results of it. > > An interesting, but not very convincing defense for an ill-suited term. > Granted that DQ is posited as a "constant flow" or continuum of > undifferentiated Quality. But such continuous motion in the absence of a > relational reference is really no motion at all. For example, if our > galaxy > were the only body of matter in infinite space, how would "movement" be > determined? What would it be moving_toward_? Since motion is relative, > it > can only have meaning within a relational system. Now, you might argue > that > existence is that relational system, except that existence is not primary > (in either Pirsig's or my ontology). Rather, existence is derived from > the > source (Quality or Essence). > > Dynamics deals with forces related to the motion or equilibrium of > entities > in a system. It seems to me that this term more properly applies not to > the > primary nature of the source itself, but its differentiation or breakdown > into "existents" (i.e., the patterns or phenomena of relational existence, > including its sensible agents). Again, this is an argument for the > dynamics > of S/O reality, which is relative, as opposed to Quality or Essence which > is > not. > >> A meteor is indeed a static pattern of value. Furthermore >> all static manifestations of biological level are in some degree >> able to react and respond to DQ, that is the whole of it. >> The things you name are not separate, they belong to the >> biological level of static patterns of value, but maybe they >> are in a state where DQ effects them more, I don't know. > > Indeed, the "effects" (affects?) as presently outlined leave much to the > imagination, as is evident from the mass of posts about it on this forum. > One would wish that the author had developed his theory as a formal > document, instead of leaving it open to speculation from quoted sections > of > his novels. I know I'm in the minority here, but I'm of the opinion that > his refusal to define the fundamental elements of the MoQ on the ground > that > "trying to define it would destroy the concept" is not a valid excuse for > a > philosopher. > >> The MOQ would state that [those] feelings are reactions to >> Quality (Dynamic undefined Quality) and can belong to any >> level really. The feelings may of course be transformed into >> static patterns (Marriage for example being a static social >> pattern of value) But when they arise they are (in a MOQ >> explanation) reactions to Quality. > > You say "patterns are static, by their very nature, " and you cite > Marriage > is an understandable example of a social value. But how do we define > processes leading to > or away from it, such as courtship, romance, marital rifts, filing for > divorce, etc., all of which are events occurring over time rather than > static states of matrimony. Would you say that any of these stages are > "static patterns". Would at least one or to be "dynamic patterns"? I > think I've demonstrated the semantic problem. > > But now I see that you've convinced Ron that patterns ARE dynamic! > > [Ron]: >> But to be exact, yes you are quite right as I understand it. >> So I guess we can answer the thread title by saying >> theoretically a pattern is never static. > > The MoQ is a theory, is it not? Then, theoretically > speaking--logically--a > pattern must either be dynamic or static. Well, which is it to be, > gentlemen? > > Essentially still confused, > Ham > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
