Hi all Obviously a pattern involves something repeating, or 2 or more of some event or object that have at least one thing in common, but there is rarely complete identity, the flowing wave oscillates and changes location, 2 oak trees share a pattern but also have unique differences due to differing histories. So in some sense all patterns are changing or are subject to change, processes unfold and are all open to contingency, people die, engines break down, the sun burns out, there is pattern and unique and particular openness in all processes, DQ and SQ, patterns only repeat for so long, all things fall apart, everything emerges from nothing or from previous SQ or patterns, building up levels of SQ, constant change, constant coming and going of patterns. Marsha has a point if interpreted in this way I would suggest. But obviously there is an absence of change when something repeats, or an absence of difference when there is some sharing of some identity, even Mar sha and DMB may have some things in common despite their differences.
Any help? David M david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: >A couple of weeks ago (September 5th) in a different thread Marsha said to >dmb: > >... you've repeatedly said that I don't understand the difference between >Dynamic Quality and static quality. I have forever said that the difference >is Dynamic Quality is unpatterned, while static quality is patterned? Am I >wrong? > > >dmb says: >Yes, I think you are confused about the MOQ's central distinction. It is >correct to say that static patterns are patterned, obviously, and DQ is not >static or patterned. But you also describe static patterns as "ever-changing", >which defies the meaning of "static" and "patterned". That's just one of many >examples wherein you demonstrate a misunderstanding of this very key >distinction. To parrot one of Pirsig's slogans is not enough to show any >comprehension and it's certainly not a proper response to the long and >detailed explanation that you've already dismissed because, as you put it, >it's sophomoric and it sucks. > >The latest insulting dismissal is part of a years-long pattern wherein you >find a reason to dismiss the criticism rather than face up to it responsibly. >Based on your posts over the months and years, I have concluded that your view >of the static and Dynamic is riddled with contradictions and confusions and >apparently you are unwilling or incapable of discussing any of these >criticisms. > >It seems everyone except you thought my last explanation was bloody good. >Would it really kill you to read it and think about its meaning and then >respond honestly? I'm sure it would help if you just look at it as if it were >about the MOQ rather than a set of accusations about you. Try to discern the >ideas, especially the good ones, and try to understand the critical remarks >about the bad ideas without attaching yourself to them. > >The problem with the constant excuses and evasions is that there can't be any >discussions or philosophical engagements. Is there any other situation where >it's MORE inappropriate to be a conversation killer or a philosophy hater? >Seriously, such behavior is as wrong as it can be for a place like this. >Insult and evade, dismiss and evade, has been your pattern for YEARS! You just >refuse to do the only thing you're really supposed to do. That's not right. >How can you fail to see that? Don't you see how much hostility it inspires in >all kinds of people? Sigh. This whole paragraph is just more wasted time >talking about your behavior instead of talking about the MOQ. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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
