A suggestion I just provided in another post, would be for you to
present your static patterns of value in several different ways. When
somebody asks "how can the static change" you can respond with an
explanation. You do this well below with skin (imo).
The concern that I have with the patterns approach is that it is the
deconstruction provided by Structuralism. This is of course the fad
of the day with science and all that. Yes, water can be broken down
into patterns of molecules which are ever flowing and forming patterns
within the water as a whole, but is this the only way to view it?
Doesn't such a view simplify to a point of meaninglessness?
Sometimes it is good to decribe the forest in ways other than pointing
to the trees that make it up and are constantly growing and dying.
For if all that we do is look at the trees, we miss the forest
To use a static pattern approach to explain static patterns we
currently display (as in the reference to Pirsig) does not add much to
the discussion, imo. I could say that I survive because I am the
fittest, and use evolutionary theory to prove this. Of course this is
nonsense since that explains nothing. It is simply the promotion of
an idea as dogma. A bridge to other ways of seeing our existence is
Why do you find the static patterns approach to be better than other
considerations? What do you find meaningful in it? Please share, I
am just an avatar.
On 1/26/12, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
>> 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
>> 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.
> 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 >
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.