So, dmb, that would be "static patterns of value are ... ever-changing", not 'ever-changing static patterns'. The misrepresentation changes the emphasis.
It's oxymoronic nonsense either way. The terms are contradictory regardless of the order of their appearance. No matter which comes first in the equation, you are equating opposites.
Why can you not see the simple logic of this objection? It seems to be fairly obvious to everyone else.