Hi John in discussion with DMB and (I think) Dan,
DMB said:
It's just about thinking and talking badly. It's about ruining the
possibility of any real communication. We trade in words and ideas here and
so this is NOT nit picking about typos or spelling errors. To misconstrue
the basic meaning of these terms is intellectually paralyzing. When confused
concepts are being used at that basic level, the conversation is going
nowhere fast.
Agree completely, DMB, so let me see if I understand your objection.
Are you saying that static latches are absolutes that never change?
That seems to be your point, but you know things latch and unlatch all
the time; to be replaced when something 'better' comes along. Some
latches are very strong and persist for a long time, others are weak
and quickly come unlatched, and sometimes things are tried out then
discarded almost immediately when their anticipated value fails to
'materialize' (so to speak).
John asked:
can you demonstrate any object
or pattern that is truly static, in all of experience? No, you cannot.
I've been wondering when somebody was going to ask this question.
Thanks, John. If static latches are never-changing, somebody should
be able to name one. I won't try to speak for Marsha, but on some
basic level this has to be what she is saying. Nothing we can name is
permanent, ergo 'ever changing' is completely correct. Maybe some
things just take longer to change than others so that they appear to
be permanent?
Permanence is an illusion just like subjects and objects are an illusion.
Ron chimes in:
You are correct, but in order for terms to have any precision in meaning
they can't contradict for the sake of discussion and continuity in
understanding.
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
