Marsha said to dmb:
.., 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. ...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.
No, it doesn't make good sense. Your description of the function of static patterns as "ever-changing" is exactly wrong. Their function is to stabilize, preserve, latch and otherwise provide order. DQ is always simple and new but static quality is complex and old. If static patterns were ever-changing, then we couldn't rightly say they are static or patterned or latched or ordered or anything remotely like that. You are confusing the empirical flux with the conceptual order. As a result your verbose descriptions are incoherent and contradictory.
From Lila, Chapter 9: "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of realty, the source of all things, completely simple and always new. ...Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of FREEDOM, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of ORDER, preserve our world."