> [Marsha] > You wrote "With such a definition what Marsha thinks she has done is capture > DQ in her definition of static quality." No, I never thought to include DQ > in my definition of static patterns of value. I have maintained that Dynamic > Quality (unpatterned) is basically "indivisible, undefinable & unknowable" > and is best approached by: not this, not that.
[djh] I have no objection to your definition of Dynamic Quality. I know that you can see the value of this undefined quality quite well. As I've said.. I take issue with your definition of static patterns of value. It muddys the distinction between it and Dynamic Quality. Is your definition still the following? "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 categorised 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." If so, this is an ugly definition as it blurs the clear [Context 2] intellectual line between patterns and Dynamic Quality. For instance, you use phrases like "impermanent and ever-changing" and "have no independent, inherent existence". These two phrases in particular relate to the epistemological insights found from a Context 1 perspective. But as Paul's paper points out, there is a whole other ontological context of the MOQ which makes the assumption that static patterns of value exist before(independent of us) thinking about them. It is from this context that we can actually begin to discuss metaphysics - for without such an assumption we can never really intellectually talk about anything. As I've stated previously - the very nature of an intellectual pattern is that we assume that something occurred before we think about or manipulate it. "Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as biological and inorganic patterns are designated with a sign that stands for them and these signs are manipulated independently of the patterns they stand for. " 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
