David, No moment is ever the same... Mu.
Marsha p.s. I very rarely get the opportunity use this ever-so-insightful dialogue. Thanks for the opportunity. On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:28 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > Not really. What's the value of static patterns? I'm genuinely interested in > both your viewpoints on this. Static patterns represent death. Dynamic > Quality is where it's at. Why should I bother with static quality? > > -David. > > On 21/03/2012, at 11:16 PM, MarshaV wrote: > >> >> David, >> >> This is a rhetorical bit, right? >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> On Mar 21, 2012, at 7:52 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Mark and Marsha, >>> >>> Who likes static patterns? They're old and complex. They represent death... >>> Pirsig says as much... >>> >>> "They have no love. They offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them >>> is to succumb to death, since that which does not change cannot live." - >>> Lila >>> >>> "(Static quality) is old and complex. It always contains a component of >>> memory. Good is conformity to an established pattern of fixed values and >>> value objects. Justice and law are identical. Static morality is full of >>> heroes and villains, loves and hatreds, carrots and sticks. Its values >>> don't change by themselves. Unless they are altered by Dynamic Quality they >>> say the same thing year after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly, >>> sometimes more softly, but the message is always the same." - Lila >>> >>> Boring! YAWN!! I hate static patterns. They're so old and boring. They >>> don't change. Soo complex too. It makes my head hurt. But then there's >>> DYNAMIC QUALITY!! Ta DAA. That brings the change for the better that we >>> want.... >>> >>> If I am to live my life, I'm going to follow Dynamic Quality and Dynamic >>> Quality alone. I'm going to ignore what static quality there is from the >>> past and *Create* for the future and that's it. Continually create things. >>> One thing after another. Entirely irrespective of those boring static >>> patterns which exist already. That's the way to live my life! Just create - >>> don't discover.. Forget static patterns. They suck. They're always about >>> what did exist in past. Who cares about the past? Let's look to the future >>> to create for the future and the future alone! >>> >>> What do you guys think? >>> >>> Do you think there's any value in static patterns? Or should we always just >>> keep our eyes on that undefinable Dynamic Quality and not worry about the >>> static patterns of the past? >>> >>> -David. >>> >> 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
