And my trying to devise a useful definition for 'static patterns of value' is trying to analyze what gives direction to static quality.
So what did you, dmb, omit?
So what did you, dmb, omit with the ellipsis in the quote?
Being an either/or type of individual, you dmb, must have thought it better to exclude both statements. I suppose that is smart if you are accusing someone else of contradiction.
Seems to me that dmb is trying to suppress, by his insistence on words and concepts, Dynamic Quality, the "higher moral order".
I just couldn't resist Marsha. I am sure dmb will respond in due course (sigh) but I would suggest that your muddling with DQ/sq caused your own confusion. You want to 'analyze what gives direction to static quality'? What does dmb have to do to answer a question which is only a problem in your own head? Quote both ZMM and LILA IN FULL?!!
What drives the whole static 'process' is DQ. It's plain and clear as daylight for anyone who has read both ZMM and LILA. You obviously haven't or if you have, must have forgotten some fundamental things. Because the MOQ also states that static patterns of value DO NOT CHANGE BY THEMSELVES.
That's what you get when you are rejecting the existing plain, simple, clear and useful definition of static patterns of value and try to substitute your own. You make a mess of it.