Marsha said: Static patterns of value are ever-changing, but change in a stable, predictable pattern.
dmb says: Again, I think you're making quite a mess. You've got it all mixed upside down and you're forwarding concepts that are bass ackwards. Static patterns of value are stable, but they evolve in unpredictable ways. "Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other." (Lila, 121) On Mar 17, 2011, at 9:40 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > > > > Dan said to Marsha: > > ...I guess we do have different concepts, but the question is, which is > > more in line with the MOQ? > > > > Marsha replied: > > ...I think all static patterns of value, even those in the MoQ, are > > ever-changing and interdependent, and one might always be able to deepen > > one's understanding. > > > > dmb says: > > As I see it, this does quite constitute a philosophical or metaphysical > > dispute. Marsha's problem is more basic than that. > > Here she says that static patterns are ever-changing. Since "static > > pattern" means something like "stable configuration" or "persisting > > arrangement", describing static patterns as "ever-changing" is about as > > wrong as it gets. > > > > James and Pirsig both say: > > "..concepts [are] derived from something more fundamental which he [James] > > described as 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to > > our later reflection with its conceptual categories." > > Pirsig says James "had condensed this description to a single sentence" > > when he said... > > > > "There must always be a discrepancy between concepts [static patterns] and > > reality [the ever-changing flux of experience], because the former are > > static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing." > > > > You see, there are only two main concepts here. Like hot and cold or north > > and south, static means not dynamic and dynamic means not static. But how > > does Marsha render this first and most basic distinction in the MOQ? She > > says that static means dynamic, that static means "ever-changing". Yikes! > > That is exactly what static does NOT mean. > > > > See, this is not a philosophical dispute. Marsha is not interpreting the > > MOQ "differently" so much as she has simply cut herself loose from that > > system of shared meanings we call the English language. > > > > static |ˈstatik|adjective1 lacking in movement, action, or change, esp. in > > a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting : demand has grown in what was > > a fairly static market | the whole ballet appeared too static.• Computing > > (of a process or variable) not able to be changed during a set period, for > > example, while a program is running.2 Physics concerned with bodies at rest > > or forces in equilibrium. Often contrasted with dynamic .• (of an electric > > charge) having gathered on or in an object that cannot conduct a current.• > > acting as weight but not moving.• of statics.3 Computing (of a memory or > > store) not needing to be periodically refreshed by an applied voltage. > > > > > > dynamic |dīˈnamik|adjective1 (of a process or system) characterized by > > constant change, activity, or progress : a dynamic economy.• (of a person) > > positive in attitude and full of energy and new ideas : she's dynamic and > > determined.• (of a thing) stimulating development or progress : the dynamic > > forces of nature.• Physics of or relating to forces producing motion. Often > > contrasted with static .• Linguistics (of a verb) expressing an action, > > activity, event, or process. Contrasted with stative .• Electronics (of a > > memory device) needing to be refreshed by the periodic application of a > > voltage.• Electronics of or relating > > > > > > I really don't see how it could be possible to have any kind of fruitful > > conversation with anyone who uses terms and concepts to mean the very > > opposite of what everyone else means. You might as well be a driver who > > defines "right" to mean "left". When you go out for a drive in your car, > > you're probably going to break a whole lot of laws and maybe even kill > > somebody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
