Hi DMB Thanks for the below but nothing useful there for me unfortunately. Have you ever studied any science, genuinely curious? Do dictionaries get constantly revised do you think? Is a second reading of a book different to the first, can anything truly ever remain unchanged, everything on this planet is flying through space and time, obviously SQ has meaning but do you reject relativity theory and observer dependence or QT and all observations change what is observed, but is the flux best seen as ever changing as you say below, well without pattern you cannot identify change, check out what scientists say about time, structure and the second law of thermodynamics, you might learn something. Without change we fail to recognise pattern, neurons do not even fire, experience is more complex than you seem to realise I'd suggest, look how bad rigid SOM dualism turned out, are you taking MOQ to a similar bad place, this is the principle of the yin and yang symbol, no black w ithout a white dot emerging in its heart, you prefer clear boundaries it seems, try and chill out, relax, read some Dewey, be a bit less stuck on clarity and certainty, experience is quite fuzzy, too rigid concepts are a bad fit for real experience is all I suggest you ponder.
David M david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> David Morey said: >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 Ma r > sha and DMB may have some things in common despite their differences. Any > help? > > > > >dmb says: > >No, David, that's not helpful. Nobody said that static patterns entail >"complete identity". In fact, I don't know what that means. Nobody said that >static patterns can never change. Since the MOQ frames them in an evolutionary >hierarchy and has a pragmatic theory of provisional and plural truth, it would >be quite foolish and wrong to say static patterns can never change. > >But - for the hundredth time - it is simply contradictory to describe static >patterns as ever-changing or as constantly changing. It contradicts the name >and the concept. You know what makes a might fine synonym for "Dynamic"? >"Ever-changing" is one of the best. > > >"The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the >Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic >tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks about >does." > > >See? The MOQ is static, he says. And what does that mean? "Like the rest of >the printed philosophic tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although >the world it talks about does." > >"I don't mind the Quality, it's just that all the classical talk about it >ISN'T Quality. Quality is just a focal point around which a lot of >intellectual furniture is getting re-arranged." (ZAMM, p.223) > > >" 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because >the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and >flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for >the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality." > > >We are here to exchange ideas. It's all static patterns because that means we >use words and concepts, printed pages and a lot of intellectual furniture. >This does not change from day to day. If words and concepts were constantly >changing then communication would be impossible. > >This does not mean that the world is any less dynamic. In fact, Pirsig and >James could both rightly be called process philosophers. But the whole point >of static patterns, according to the MOQ, is to provide stability and order. > > >"Life cannot exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling >to Dynamic Quality is to cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about >Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather that futilely trying to >define what it is... Slowly at first, and then with increasing awareness that >he was going in a right direction, Phaedrus' central attention turned away >from any further explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned to the static >patterns themselves" (Robert Pirsig in Lila). > >There is a mountain of evidence and made this case a hundred times. > > >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
