Hi dmb,

To start with, if one checks the dictionary definitions for 'quality' and 'value', there is no mention of either being the foundation of reality, and there is no mention of either's "first cut" being into static and dynamic components.  So right from the get-go, with the Metaphysics of Quality, we are beyond standard dictionary definitions.  Philosophy often requires refining terminology.  

The statement is "Static patterns of value are processes: conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized processes that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern."  The accusations 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.  

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 (pattern) is identically repeated; the pattern evolves with the 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 belief that things and concepts exist as independent things-in-themselves.    

To extract a few words from my statement and then to rearrange them to present them as contradiction is a major distortion.   As used within the sentence, and more broadly within the paragraph the term 'ever-changing' makes good sense and expands one's understanding of 'the way things are', 'the way patterns are'; not as independent, inherently existing self and objects, but recursive, pragmatic patterns of value.  There is no contradiction in my statement.  


Marsha


>
>
> On Jan 18, 2012, at 4:18 PM, david buchanan wrote:    
>
> Marsha said:
> So, dmb, that would be "static patterns of value are ... ever-changing", not 'ever-changing static patterns'.  The misrepresentation changes the emphasis.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jan 18, 2012, at 3:59 PM, Marsha V wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi dmb,
>>
>> You misquoted me.  It is:
>>
>> 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. Static quality 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 pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern of life history.
>>
>> So, dmb, that would be "static patterns of value are ... ever-changing", not 'ever-changing static patterns'.  The misrepresentation changes the emphasis. But that tactic represents your level of quality.  And why I consider you haven't a basic instinct for the MoQ.  
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Marsha

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