OK, Marsha. Thank you for you reflexive writing, I learned a lot about your views on Quality.
Over and out. Mark On Oct 27, 2011, at 2:35 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, > > I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions, but thanks for more of your > automatic writing.... > > > Marsha > > > > On Oct 27, 2011, at 4:41 PM, 118 wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> Wow, that is a mouthful, thanks for that. I guess it takes a static bundle >> of words to present the static. >> >> If your ever changing is constant, then such a description never changes. >> So in term of change, your static never changes, which I guess is why you >> describe it as static. A few posts ago I asked you what this change is in >> reference to. That is, your processes must change according to something >> else. Otherwise your ever changing has no meaning. If I say I am moving >> this must be in reference to something else. >> >> Does the static change with reference to the dynamic? This would be an >> interesting idea to explore. I am looking for metaphors which can promote >> the interaction between DQ and sq. any ideas? >> >> Since you seem to have read The Black Swan, you can appreciate that >> -predictability only works in hindsight. So your static corresponds to >> coyote John's notion of The Past, and DQ being the Future. This would mean >> that we live between sq and DQ, or, in the present. What do you think? >> >> >> >> >> Mark >> >> On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:22 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Actually, Mark, here is my definition of static patterns of value: >>> >>> Static patterns of value are processes: ever-changing, conditionally >>> co-dependent, impermanent and conceptualized. Ever-changing processes that >>> pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable >>> pattern. These patterns are categorized into an evolutionary, >>> hierarchical structure consisting of four discrete levels: inorganic, >>> biological, social and intellectual. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 1:09 PM, MarshaV wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Mark, >>>> >>>> I consider static patterns of value from two different points of view. >>>> One would be the nature of ALL patterns: interdependent, impermanent, >>>> ever-changing and conceptualized. A second would be by categorization >>>> according to their evolutionary function: inorganic, biological, social >>>> and intellectual. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> 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 >> 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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 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
