Marsha wrote:
Static patterns of value are processes: impermanent, interdependent,
ever-changing. (Not objects. Not subjects. Not things-in-themselves.)
Overlapping, interconnected, ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend to
persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. ...Dmb has challenged
this definition by removing two words (static and ever-changing) from their
context (reifying them) and pitting them against each other. As if two words
pulled from a definition can in any way represent the whole definition.
Besides, one can easily understand 'ever-changing' as the 'evolution' process,
which makes it very consistent within MoQ.
dmb says:
Removing the terms from their context? Apparently you don't know what "context"
means.
Pirsig says that static patterns do not change all by themselves and without
Dynamic Quality they would simply die of old age. He says static pattern are
the force of order, the value of stability without which nothing could last.
Your definition, especially the "ever-changing" part, simply contradicts the
meaning of the term.
Let's say we have some big, coherent set of ideas, a whole metaphysical system
based around "Water" and it begins with a distinction between solid water and
flowing water. We can say that they are different even though they are both
water. They're different because the chunks of ice have a definite shape and
location whereas a stream of liquid water has no particular shape and is
constantly in motion. We can say they are different because the solid form is
for skating and skiing and chilling our cocktails while the latter is for
boating, swimming and drinking. By analogy, your definition of "solid" would
lead you to take a swan-dive into an iceberg or a skating rink. To define
static patterns as ever-changing is like defining "solid" as freely flowing and
fluid. Sure, ice melts. Glaciers flow in their own icy way and nobody thinks
icebergs are permanent or eternal. But that doesn't mean that ice can be
defined as a liquid. That's just not what the word means. Terms like "frozen"
and "ice" specifically refer to that which is not in a liquid state, derive
their meaning by virtue of what they are not as well as what they are. That's
why we call it a distinction in the first place. By analogy, you've defined
solid ice as warm and wet. That's not deep or wise, sister. That's just
profoundly confused nonsense. It's like you're trying to be as wrong as
possible on purpose.
You're defining static as "ever-changing", which is the exact opposite of what
the word means. The most basic dictionary definition explicitly says the term
described that which is "lacking in change" or "not able to change". Go ahead.
Continue to use the english language with this level of precision. Let us know
how that works out for you.
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 .
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
