[dmb] > contradictory terms (ever-changing static patterns) > migrating static values are engaged in an evolutionary battle...migrating and > evolving.
IMHO this is a distinction without a difference. It matters not whether we say static patterns are "ever-changing" or are " migrating and evolving". [dmb] > the primary empirical reality (DQ) is ever-changing. Something changes only if it is different from one time to the next. One time is different from the next only if there are some changes. [dmb] > [Marsha] has to take the stability out entirely by describing static patterns > as "ever-changing". > Static patterns, one the other hand, can't be ever-changing. The definitions > of words change and evolve, sure, > but without stability of meaning you can't have language at all. This problem is as old as Hericlitus: can one step into the same waters twice? If you mean by "the same waters", waters we have given the same name to (such as the Aegean Sea), then, yes, you can step into the Aegean Sea twice. But if you mean, waters identical in every detail, then, no, you cannot, because those waters are constantly changing, though their name stays the same. But since relatively few static patterns are words, almost all static patterns are changing, even while our word for each of them stays the same. [see Strawson on re-identification of individuals] Craig 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
