>> Yes, I must agree with dmb if he thinks that naming something defines it statically. This is where you and I disagree. I would like to know more about your position on naming things. Do you not agree with this?
> Yes, I too, agree with dmb that naming is an aspect of static patterns. That is what I mean by "conceptual designation" in my definition:
> 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 morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. This static value exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns: patterns depend upon innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), depend upon parts and the collection of parts (patterns), depend upon conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent existence. Further, these patterns represent "what works" depending upon on an individual's static pattern of life history.
> Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.
Why do you like the fact that patterns need to be relative and dependent upon each other so much? Why's that good?