Hello everyone On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [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.
Hi Arlo I would issue a caution that Dynamic Quality cannot be understood in an intellectual sense. "It" comes before intellectualization. I understand you to say by "ever-changing" that Dynamic Quality is "not this, not that." And that's okay. But it should be stressed that change as we understand it is a static quality pattern, as is "not this, not that," and every "thing" we discuss. Otherwise, I fully agree. Thank you, Dan 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
