Hello Ham The main difference is if there are processes that are reproduced or bound in some kind of loop. Hydrogen atoms for example are vere stable processes while what we know about the life of this planet or some economic policies doesn't seem to be very stable. Hydrogen is Hydrogen, if the structure of the actual lump of energy is changed then it will be called something else than Hydrogen.
The four levels of static quality, which is one of RMP's most important contribution to human knowledge, shows the difference between levels of stable processes that have about the same conditions, and processes that are dependent on others that are not dependent on the first. The biologic processes that are dependent on the inorganic matter while inorganic processes doesn't bother about biology at all for example. An intellectual thought can be hold by any human. Static quality is how something can be stable, repeated and reproduced, while dynamic is how just anything stable can change into just anything else. That is why it is impossible to exactly define dynamic quality, just because static patterns are some, but not the complete series of, possible examples of what DQ can do for you. Jan Anders 27 feb 2013 kl. 00.16 skrev Hamilton Priday: > Greetings Horse, Marsha, DMB, and All -- > > As an Essentialist who believes that Value is man's link to Essence, I would > be remiss in letting last week's discussion pass without comment. > > On 23/02/2013 09:18, MarshaV wrote: >> >> One definition I provide is concerning 'self'. If one asks: What is the >> relationship between the individual and static quality? I'd answer: "The >> “self” is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and >> impermanent static patterns: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social >> patterns and intellectual patterns of value flowing in the >> infinite field of Dynamic Quality." >> >> My definition of static patterns of value is of repetitious and >> ever-changing process: >> Static patterns of value are repetitive processes, conditionally >> co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, that >> pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable >> pattern. Within the MoQ, these patterns are morally categorized into a >> four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, >> social and intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative >> to other patterns: patterns depend upon (exist relative to) innumerable >> causes and conditions (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) parts and >> the collection of parts (patterns), depend upon (exist relative to) >> conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent >> existence. Further, these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an >> individual's static pattern of life history. > > DavidB replied: >> >> I'm concerned with the definitions of these terms simply because you are >> misusing these terms. Misuse of the terms is the issue and so standard >> definitions of those terms becomes important. >> To say that Quality or value is the foundation of reality is not to define >> Quality, which is prohibited by the MOQ >> anyway. It is a metaphysical claim and dictionaries just don't help us with >> something that. My criticism is much more >> basic. It's about using words badly. It's about contradictory sentences. >> It's about using words to mean the opposite of what they mean every other >> speaking of English. It's not about mysticism. It's just about grammar. > > Horse then stepped in with an intention to clarify: >> >> I've got to say that I agree with DMB about the contradiction of terms >> within your definition of self. >> If something is static or stable how can it be ever-changing? >> If something is static or stable it tends not to change over time or if it >> does change it changes slowly, thus retaining it's stability. >> If something is ever-changing then it tends to be unstable and/or chaotic. >> Patterns of value that are stable persist over time which would appear to be >> the antithesis of your definition. >> >> If you insist that static patterns of value are ever changing - i.e. stable >> patterns are unstable - would you mind showing how you manage to overcome >> what appears to be an inconsistency in your definition. >> I think I see what you're getting at but this part of your definition just >> doesn't appear to make sense and repeating it over and over offers no >> explanation. > > I think there IS a semantic problem with Pirsig's terminology which this > group is too "politically correct" to acknowledge. I also think it stifles > philosophy to claim that an idea or theory -- even an intuitive concept that > can't > be experienced -- is incapable of definition. > > Marsha is on the right track when she says, "My definition of static value is > of repetitious and ever-changing process." ALL existence (beingness) is > process because it it is experienced as differentiated events that occur > sequentially in time and space. And "process" (by dictionary definition) is > "a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular > result." Doesn't that define the life-experience of an individual in a > relational world? So all this talk about "static value" really applies only > to the particular "patterns" or "principles" by which we intellectualize > relational values. > > Until you can appreciate the unbounded, unconditional status of absolute > Oneness, there will always be something more appealing about a "dynamic" than > a "static" characterization of Value, which I suspect was Pirsig's motive for > coining 'DQ'. But the value-experience itself is a DYNAMIC process, whether > its metaphysical source is static or not. (As some of you know, I happen to > believe in an uncreated, immutable source that transcends space/time and > creates by negation.) And, while I've always held Pirsig's concept of > primary Value in high regard, it is becoming increasingly more apparent that > the "static/dynamic" terminology as applied to Quality is an impediment to > full comprehension of the author's ontology. > > Thanks for taking this critical issue out of the closet and into the light of > frank discussion. > > Cheers and best wishes, > Ham > > > 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
