[Marsha]
I hope Arlo does not mind me reposting it; I only save posts I think
are the most brilliant.
[Arlo]
Arlo doesn't mind, although since I was not a part of your
disagreement with DMB, I am not sure what kind of "HA!" John thinks
this conveys, but oh well. Nor am I sure your point?
But since this seems to imply your asking me my thoughts, and to
clarify, I'll chime in.
First, I agree with Dave in that presenting only two options
(ever-changing and never-changing) is wrong. I also agree that
Dynamic Quality is best understood as "ever-changing", so using that
term to describe static quality unnecessarily conflates and confuses the two.
Yes, when viewed from an "eternal perspective", all static patterns
change over time. None are "eternally permanent" and un-changing.
But, for me, the distinction is that it is pragmatically useful for
us to act in the world by seeing static patterns as unchanging enough
to be, for all intents and purposes, "unchanging" and "discrete".
For example, I know that when I go into a pub and park my Harley
outside, when I come out in a few hours (barring theft) my motorcycle
will be as I left it, and I know I will be able to discern my
motorcycle from a cloud, the dirt and even the motorcycle next to it.
Sure, if you ask me I will acknowledge that in thousands of years the
metal and fiberglass and rubber and whatnot that compromise my Harley
will have likely "changed" through disintergration or some other
transformative process.
But pragmatically, it is of more value to me to act as if the bike is
unchanging and discrete. Yes, I know this is ultimately an illusion.
Yes, I know the motorcycle is not eternally unchanging in the cosmos.
But acting like the bike is "ever changing" and "indiscrete" from
other static patterns would leave me very hindered at acting in the real world.
So saying the bike is "ever-changing" and "indiscrete from other
patterns" has no real practical value. So I don't act with pragmatic
consideration at the knowledge that in 100,000 years the iron will be
disintegrated. I don't act with pragmatic consideration that its
patterns are part of the clouds above and dirt below and other
machines next to it.
I can hear the mechanics chiming in that one HAS to pragmatically
recognize the changes going on within the motorcycle to keep it
running, and I am not saying these can be pragmatically ignored. I am
talking about the "staticness" that keeps the motorcycle from
disappearing as a "motorcycle", and for me that is rooted in the
pragmatic value that acting as if the machine is stable over time and
discernable from the birds flying overhead brings.
I know in billions and billions of years the earth will no longer
exist, the sun will be dead, maybe our entire galaxy may be collapsed
into a black hole, but its more useful to me to act regarding my
motorcycle still being in the parking garage when I go back for it,
and that I will be able to discern my motorcycle from the cars, the
stones, the people, the fence, the bushes, etc.
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
