[MD] DQ: to define or undefine

[Ian Glendinning]

Krim 'n'all,

Dan said: "And Dynamic Quality defined is
static quality. But static quality defined is not Dynamic Quality."

Krim says "What that means is that DQ is NOT undefinable. DQ is just
the opposite of
SQ. SQ is patterns that don't change and DQ is patterns that do change."

No, No, No.

Opposites yes, but opposites in nature too.

Change / Not change is a matter of degree - timescale.
DQ is the immediate, "in the moment" change potential. After that
things get more static, defined, fossilised.

So, Dan's statement is good. It just needs a little care in reading it.

"Dynamic Quality Defined is static quality" is exactly right.

By Dynamic Quality Defined is NOT Dynamic Quality.

It is NOT "the definition of DQ" that DQ would recognise - it is a
static intellectual concept. ie "the definition of DQ" is a static
pattern, whereas DQ is DQ.

Definition is the static part, the intellectual part, not the quality itself.

This is only a recurring problem, because people do not believe
(really accept) that DQ is undefined, ie by definition ;-) That
circularity is GOOD, not a problem.

(PS Matt is on the right track with his level changing loops of
discourse. Rhetoric & narrative about something is one thing. But
Logical definition is another, different thing. A metaphysics and it's
"subject" are different things.)
Ian