Hello everyone On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:13 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Dan, > > I think it best to consider static patterns of value from two different > points-of-view. The first would be the nature of all patterns: conditionally > co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized. The process of > conceptualization would pertain to all patterns (ideas/language).
Hi Marsha Are you saying these patterns exist in and of themselves? If so, then I disagree. I think they are provisional... they work until something better comes along. Seeing static patterns of quality as ever-changing and impermanent seems to go against Robert Pirsig's notion that it is best to find a balance between Dynamic Quality and static quality. If static patterns are always changing, how could we hope to form static latches? Wouldn't any evolutionary advance necessarily fall back? >Marsha: > The second point-of-view would be categorization by evolutionary function > into their four-level, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social > and intellectual. Then intellectual static patterns of value are a > particular category of pattern that began to emerge with the ancient Greeks > and functions in a particular manner: mathematics, philosophy, science, etc. Dan: Why not simply say intellectual patterns are ideas. It is a good idea to state inorganic patterns of quality come first. It is a better idea to say that Quality comes first. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
