[David M] there is pattern and unique and particular openness in all processes, DQ and SQ, patterns only repeat for so long, all things fall apart...
[Arlo] I think the first point to make is that no one is, or has, claimed that 'patterns' are somehow eternal and forever fixed. of course things change, the evolve. of course the inorganic patterns my motorcycle sits on top of will rush, decay and disintegrate and then recombine into some future pattern (maybe an enhanced gravitron accelerator some future mid-bulk space transport ship).. which of course works as a speculation if we hold 'time' as a stable pattern of value. But static patterns 'change' because of Dynamic Quality. This is the force, or catalyst, or field, or whatever analogy you like that introduces what we see as 'change' in the landscape around us. "Static quality" by itself does not change. To say "static patterns are ever-changing" conflates both SQ and DQ into a misleading statement. If you say instead, "static patterns evolve ['change'/move/grow/disappear/appear] in response to Dynamic Quality", there would likely be little argument. But the statement "static patterns are ever-changing" implies that 'change' is a feature of 'stability', of 'static quality'. Lastly, I'd add that pragmatically holding patterns as 'unchanging' the source of their 'value-to-us'. We can say that 'oxygen values the proximity of two hydrogen atoms', but the value 'water' has to us is that it continues to be water. It exists to us, in other words, because of its stability. The 'static quality' of my 'motorcycle' (inorganically, biologically, socially and intellectually) is in the fact that it is 'stable', that as these various patterns respond to Dynamic Quality (i.e., 'change') they do so at levels that do not interfere with the pragmatic value I get out of it. Pragmatically and experientially, it is the stability, the predictiveness, the evaluativeness, the responsiveness that IS the value. Take these away, accelerate 'instability' or 'change' to the point where the 'machine' disintegrates inorganically .01 seconds after being built, where the word 'motorcycle' and engine, and carburetor, and intake and transmission, and sparkplug (etc etc) all 'chang e' their meanings every millisecond, at that point it'd be safe to say that a 'motorcycle' does not even exist- and more importantly COULD NOT exist. What I see here is a notion that if we don't affix 'ever-changing' to static quality then we are promoting an unchanging, unevolving, eternally fixed cosmos. But this seems trapped in the very SOM Pirsig's ideas afforded us escape. 'Stability' only implies an unchanging world if one ignores 'Dynamic Quality'. Which is precisely what this phrase does. To use a mixed metaphor, a phrase like "static patterns are ever-changing" is applying a band-aid to a confusion. 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
