My definition of static patterns of value are repetitive processes (multiple
events), 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 categorized 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 innumerable conditions, depend upon parts and
the collection of parts, depend upon nominal and conceptual designation.
Patterns have no independent, inherent existence. Further, these patterns
pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern of life history.
The statement is "Static patterns of value are repetitive processes (multiple
events), conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, that
pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable
pattern.", and not 'ever-changing static patterns.' The accusation seems to be
that the statement is pure contradiction. And further, the accusation seems to
be that I am using the word 'ever-changing' as an adjective to the word
'static', which would be a linguistic contradiction, but I am not. I am using
the word 'ever-changing' to more precisely describe how static patterns (as
process) function.
The analogy I offer is skin, which is ever-changing through damage, aging,
health conditions and the cell replacement that is its natural process, yet
skin keeps its overall functional and physical pattern. Its physical pattern
has become pragmatically the boundary of what is named, and what we identify
as, the 'body'. Like with skin there are many causes and conditions that
effect and change every pattern. The Ship of Theseus is another example of,
yes, ever-changing and, yes, stable and predictable.
RMP states that the differences in a static pattern of value is due to an
individual's static pattern history and the dynamics of the immediate. As the
immediate gets evaluated and rolled up into the network of the individual's
history, the pattern is changed There is always a difference in the conceptual
experience of a pattern from one event to the next. No experience is
identically repeated; the pattern evolves with these minute changes. While
most of the change is imperceptible to common awareness. It is change
none-the-less. To investigate and acknowledge this moves one away from the
mistaken perceptions that things and concepts exist as independent
things-in-themselves.
And from a more personal, empirical perspective, my experience is that static
patterns change continually both synchronically (in the moment) and
diachronically (over a length of time), but change within a stable, predictable
pattern. The pattern emerges in the moment-to-moment experience. As an
experience passes, so does the pattern, only to emerge again in the following
moment as a different expression of that pattern. And, of course, patterns
change in the evolutionary sense. This point of view agrees with my experience
and synthesizes well with the MoQ, which is based on empirical experiences.
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
