squonk]
> 1. The moq states that DQ is real and moral.
> 2. Static patterns regarded?as being?'more dynamic' maximise DQ and potential 
> for further evolution.
> 3.?It?is therefore a moral imperative to promote 2.

I suppose this is a "thought experiment" in the sense of "intellectual 
exercise".
It is not valid as stated, so I have revised it: 
1. DQ is real and moral.
2. Dynamic static patterns increase DQ and increase
the potential for further evolution.
2a.? It is a moral imperative to promote what increases what's
moral & what increases the potential for further evolution.
3.:. It is a moral imperative to promote Dynamic static
patterns.
The challenge, then, is to show 2. & 2a. are true.
Craig 

Hi Craig,
re. 1. Only the moq insists upon this and i did not wish to sound dogmatic.

re. 2. I was careful to apostrophise 'more dynamic' in, "static patterns 
regarded as being 'more dynamic'" and to be careful to acknowledge that some 
static patterns are talked of as being so by people who discuss these matters 
here in the moq.org, without actually stating what this means.
Chris reminded us that DQ simply 'is' and that static patterns block that which 
simply 'is'. So, it seems to me that dynamic static patterns (structures) [if 
they can be spoken about] may be said to maximise DQ in the sense that DQ 
becomes more clear through static patterns that are more opaque - a visual 
metaphor like being able to see the Sun (DQ) through a?dense radial?fan (sq). 
Spin the fan and it becomes more opaque to the Sun.
As such, our versions of 2 are identical by the looks of it.

re. 2a. So this may be redundant?

What do you reckon?
squonk

P.S. I didn't start this experiment in order to find an excuse to bang on about 
my thoughts regarding 'dynamic static patterns' because i think people may have 
had quite enough of that don't you?
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/

Reply via email to