[David] In my world, stable every changing patterns of quality... [Arlo] Ever-changing is opposed to stability. The more "ever changing" something is, the less "stable" it is. The more "stable" something is, the less "ever changing" it is. To equate them is to misunderstand both.
Imagine a mountain that is "ever changing" to greater and greater degrees, not very "stable" is it? No one denies that mountains don't erode, or that they can't blow up like a volcano (well, not all mountains can do this). But the value of "stable", the value of "stability" is precisely opposite the value of "ever changing". The more stable a mountain is, the more valuable it is. We steer clear of volcanoes and mountains that are rapidly crumbling, we build homes and herd goats, and ski, and climb, and all that on mountains that are "stable". "Is this plane stable?" "It's ever changing." "Thanks, I'll take the bus." Of course, this isn't suggesting that airplanes are metaphysically primary (either subjectively or objectively), or that the airplane is forever motionless. I think you guys are so trapped in an SOM view that you can't imagine "stable" without it evoking S/O primacy, and that's too bad. I mean, "stable pattern" is already redundant. But it makes sense because the emphasis is on 'value'. It doesn't need several antonymical adjectives to 'rescue' it from SOM. [David] But that's just me. Oh and Marsha, and probably every other less pedant human than you. [Arlo] Probably mostly just you and 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
