> Static patterns of value are processes, conditionally co-dependent,
> impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically
> tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.
> Within the MoQ, these patterns are categorized into a four-level,
> evolutionary, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social
> and intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative
> to other patterns. Patterns exist relative to innumerable causes
> and conditions (patterns), relative to parts and the collection of
> parts (patterns), relative to conceptual designation (patterns).
> Patterns have no independent, inherent existence. Further, these
> patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static
> pattern of life history.
Seems like you found the word "co-dependent" without my help. I find
the words "impermanent", "ever-changing" and "conceptualized" to be
appropriate. "...tend to persist and change within a stable,
predictable pattern." is good because it seems particularily accurate
> Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns.
I'm not sure about the word "stable". I suggest you either not use it
or try to be more specific about its meaning. What would it mean for
the patterns to be unstable?
This sentence is slightly a repetition of the first sentence in the
paragraph. That makes the reader wonder, is it really a repetition, or
is it trying to describe a different topic. Was the first sentence
about the static value patterns as processes, and does this sentence
mean that there could never be any different amount of static value
patterns than four?
It is correct to describe MoQ as a theory according to which there are
four static value patterns. But I don't think the MoQ goes so far as
to deny constructing a theory with another number of patterns, such as
> Patterns exist relative to innumerable causes and conditions
> (patterns), relative to parts and the collection of parts
> (patterns), relative to conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns
> have no independent, inherent existence.
This part is slightly obscure. It seems like an unspecific list, which
illustrates of produces associations rather than defines. It would be
more ambitious to define, but in this case the problem is, that LILA's
MoQ only defines one linear relationship between the patterns, which
is: INORG -> BIO -> SOC -> INT.
If we were using RP, we could say:
"1. Romantic quality contains sensory and emotional perceptions or
input. Classical quality includes conceptual designation.
2. Objective quality contains conceptual descriptions of romantic
quality which assume the existence of the outside world. It emerges
from romantic quality.
3. Subjective quality contains conceptual descriptions of romantic
quality which do not assume the existence of the outside world. It
emerges from romantic quality.
4. Normative quality contains purely abstract and formal axiomatic
constructs. It emerges from objective quality, and subjective quality
emerges from it.
5. All these forms can be divided into a natural number of patterns.
6. The lowest subjective pattern and the highest objective pattern
emerge from a portion of romantic quality from which all of classical
quality emerges at once."
> Further, these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's
> static pattern of life history.
Could you be more specific? Could these patterns exist without the
notion of an individual having a life history?