Hi dmb,

On Jan 26, 2012, at 3:09 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan@hotm...> wrote:


>
> 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.
>
>
> dmb says:
> 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.

You've misrepresented the explanation, again.  I wrote "describe how static patterns (as process) function" not "their function"  And the paragraph clearly indicates that they "pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern."


> DQ is always simple and new but static quality is complex and old.

DQ is indeterminate, but I agree static patterns may be complex and old, but both complex and old are relative terms.


> 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.

Of course we could.  We could say, as I suggest that "Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns".


> You are confusing the empirical flux with the conceptual order. As a result your verbose descriptions are incoherent and contradictory.

I am not confused at all, Dynamic Quality is indeterminate.  Static quality represent the determinate.  


> 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."

Nice quote, but doesn't refute anything I've written.  I've certainly stated the stabilizing factor of static patterns, but they are also ever-changing.  


Thanks,

Marsha


On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:13 AM, 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 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



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