Hi David, I have not renamed static quality. Static patterns of value remain static patterns of value because as repetitive process (multiple events) they pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable, fixed pattern. Marsha
On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:13 PM, "David Morey" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha > > Lots of people seem to dislike your ever-changing patterns of SQ. Do you > really mean this, > or are you saying that all static patterns are temporary, they endure for a > while, but then > they will eventually always (ever) change and cease to be experienced or > change into > a new and different static pattern. All patterns evolve and change, often > into new > patterns. Also even an unchanging pattern is processing out in some way in > terms > of moving in space-time or transferring energy to and from the environment. > Is this > what you are saying or are you saying something else? > > Seems to me that in experience any static pattern is never complete, take a > horse, > we notice some qualities about it and not others, as we continue to > experience a > set of patterns we might call a horse, the experience keeps changing, we > notice new > static qualities and stop noticing others, the qualities transcend what we > actually > notice in any moment, Pirsig talks in ZAMM about the filters of experience > and how > we cannot notice all the qualities that are potentially available to > experience. So > all static patterns are always 'on the move' in some way. Is that what you are > trying to capture with your ever-changing? Not to mention quantum fluctuations > and interference patterns of potential non-actual particles, to open up what > physicists > think about waves and patterns. Waves are both static and dynamic at the same > time for > sure. > > All the best > David M > > -----Original Message----- From: David Harding > Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:07 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] theories of truth (Open letter to Horse at start) > >>>>>>> djh: >>>>>>> Marsha will actively claim that she doesn't care about what folks (in >>>>>>> particular dmb) think.. >>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>> What I said was that dmb is not my moral or intellectual compass. I am >>>>>> interested everyone's opinion, but do not find dmb's analogy more >>>>>> significant than anyone else's. >>>>> djh: >>>>> A quick search of the archives here for the phrase "I don't care what you >>>>> think." - except for three messages - all the rest (fourteen) are from >>>>> you (or repeats of something you've written) to someone else. >>>>> This lack of care for intellectual patterns of folks on here results in a >>>>> lack of change or improvement of your opinion. As said previously - it's >>>>> ironic, considering your definition of static patterns includes the term >>>>> of 'ever-changing'. >>>> Marsha: >>>> You didn't offer the context, so I don't know if the statements extracted >>>> from your search pertain to dmb or intellectual patterns, so let me put it >>>> like this: I don't care (to be concerned or solicitous; have thought or >>>> regard.) what dmb thinks. As I stated, dmb is not my moral or >>>> intellectual compass. I am _interested_ (curious) in everyone's opinion, >>>> but that does not mean that I must accept those opinion's. As for >>>> intellectual patterns, I am tremendously _interested_ in intellectual >>>> patterns, but feel no need to be attached to them. >>> djh: >>> What does context matter? If you actively claim to not care about what >>> someone thinks, then this is ugly and low quality not matter the context. >>> Even if you disagree with someone, the act of disagreeing is a form of >>> caring pretending otherwise is just ugly. >>> >>> As stated previously, you misunderstand non-attachment to patterns as a >>> simple change in mindset - a change in mindset that involves thinking >>> static patterns are 'ever-changing'. But this change of mindset isn't >>> non-attachment - it's just an easy excuse to not care about intellectual >>> patterns and their fundamentally static nature. Dmb's right; you do play >>> games. You play games by undercutting every intellectual disagreement >>> people have with you by just not caring about what they're saying and pass >>> this rejection off as some kind of Mystical insight. This doesn't result in >>> Dynamic Quality but as a result of your lack of care for the static nature >>> of static patterns - chaos. >> >> Marsha: >> Do you have a specific question, because I can make no clear sense of these >> two paragraphs. You seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions that I >> cannot relate to. It also seems you are assuming one truth: yours. I have >> read too much Krishnamurti, Nietzsche, Pirsig, and various Buddhist and >> other texts, along with a whole lot of thinking on the subject, to play the >> one truth game. Neither you, or dmb, is my intellectual or moral compass. >> I am interested in hearing your ideas, especially your ideas about the MoQ, >> but not your petty ideas about me. >> Do you really think 'intellectual disagreement' is unusual? >> If you have a question, I will try to explain my present position on the >> subject. >> Marsha > > djh: > There might not be one truth, but there is one universal static quality. In > line with this - there is high and low static quality. If you think it is a > good idea to claim that static quality patterns are ever-changing then, being > a philosophical discussion board - this, like all ideas, is open for > discussion. Specifically, we can discuss whether this idea is high or low > quality. So - Your idea of static patterns as 'ever-changing' is low quality > as it goes against the fundamentally static nature of static patterns. > ___ 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
