Dave T to dmb: Would you please name for me just one of these so called "static patterns" that does not physically change position moment to moment over time.
Andre: Excuse me for butting in Dave but we have gone over this before. In fact Arlo made some points about this a while ago as well relating to his motorbike. Of course that changes over time. Of course it has changed from when Arlo went into the pub, had a drink and then came out again. But the bike was still recognisable as being his own. Leave it in the weather for a number of years and yeah, the changes are noticeable because dynamic influences occur at subatomic levels all the time. But for pragmatic reasons the notion of using 'ever changing' when you mean 'stable' or 'static' is confusing because misleading. And this is the point that dmb tries to make. What I sketched above are dynamic forces in conflict with stable forces, in this case at the organic level. The DQ/sq interplay. When Marsha uses this 'ever changing' stuff with regards to static patterns she uses it in the sense of precisely that: ever changing. Marsha does not accept a difference between DQ and sq. For her these are interchangeable. Now this, from a MOQ point of view is plain silly and very confusing and she continues to wriggle herself around it. You're one step away from nihilism when you continually claim that ultimately all is an impermanent illusion anyway. I mean, why bother? In 50 years we'll all be dead so what are we arguing about? It is so defeatist and kills discussion all the time. Perhaps you can appreciate the silliness of this stance. Or do you agree with Marsha that DQ is sq and sq is DQ? 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
