Arlo (1) the implication that 'change' is an aspect of 'stability' (rather than the beginning response to DQ),
Sure the SQ we identify is stable in the moment, but look more widely and you are bound to have a SQ and DQ mix (2) the pragmatic 'value' of a stable pattern is precisely the value that 'it does not change', its the predictive/dependableness from which evolution is able to build. Agreed . (3) the need to affix the descriptor "ever-changing" to SQ is built of a confusion of the MOQ's central distinction between 'stability' and the 'creative force/dynamism'. You can say we should make a clear SQ or DQ divide, but in a wider view any process is a mix of SQ and DQ but it is all quality as you say. Does SQ respond to DQ or does it contain DQ that suddenly moves forward, hard to say, same as is it a particle or a wave, we might value the motorbike for stability, or if it needs mending we need it to change. [Arlo] Again, no one says things 'stay the same for ever'. When you say "so any static pattern is ever-ready to change", I'd say you make the same conflation error as Marsha, and a better way to say this is "so any static pattern is capable of responding to Dynamic Quality". Do you see the difference? DM sure that's one way to see the relationship, or does quality just oscillate between dq and sq? [Arlo] I'm not sure what this means. SQ *is* value. That act of 'recognition' is an act of 'valuing'. You can't recognize something that has no value. DM OK and to value an experience is also to recognise a pattern, and this can be entirely preconceptual too I suggest. 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
