[MD] Intellectual activity

[a steffes]

Steve,
   
  Looks like I'm getting all tangled up in semantics and my example failed. I quess that I was trying to illustrate that there can be dynamic dimensions to a pattern, and therfore the pattern is not necessarilly static in the strictest sense. In my example, the dynamics (color shifting) might be predictable, and therefore a pattern of some sort, and you are correct.
   
  I am probably just mistaking my own (incomplete) ideas for what moq really says.
   
  I am trying very hard to formulate the appropriate question. 
   
  I am thinking.....I am thinking......I am thinking......
   
  My opinion:
   
  (1) According to moq, any and all human-related experience or observation or "thing" is patterned in some sort of way, whether obvious regular patterns and cycles, or possibly very exotic quantum type far-out chaotic slippery slimy strangeness (ride the snake). Patterned is a synonym for static.
   
  (2) By (1) the moq-human universe is complete, otherwise there will be something left that is both human observable and unpatterned and therefore moq will fail.
   
  (3) According to moq, Quality is unavoidable.
   
  (4) Then by (2) and (3) all human related experience or observation or "thing" is "filled to the rim" with Quality. 
   
  I therefore conclude (possibly fallaciously) by (4) that I will be unable to experience or observe anything or any "thing" that is static, static as defined by moq. In other words, static-ness is but an illusion, and moq fails it's own test.
   
  That's why I asked you to name something that is truly static. I can't do it.
   
  Please don't be too devastated by my logic. Don't hang yourself. I think we can work this thing out. How about a little chicken soup for the moq-poster's soul. Remember that Monty Python episode where they try to determine if one is a witch?...if it floats...and is heavier than a chicken...
   
  The bottom line for me is that I don't see any "split". There is no soon. There is no then. There is only now and now is the birth of the universe. Pass the salsa.
   
  Where have I gone wrong?
   
  Ayar
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
Steve Peterson <vincentedisonluther at yahoo.com> wrote:
  Hi Ayar,

Case 1: Consider a color blind individual staring at a computer screen. The screen is blank except for a square graphic in the middle. The square graphic appears to be static to the color blind individual.

Case 2: But to a person with normal vision the square is cycling through various shades of red, let's say.

In the first case, the graphic is both static and a pattern.

In the second case, the graphic is "dynamic" in some sense, yet seemingly still the same pattern (a square).

I guess that's what I'm getting at by suggesting a "weak" split between the static and dynamic.

Contracting the parameters "static" and "pattern" to "patterned" and "unpatterned" we might get into trouble.


I don't see how the second case does not represent a pattern. If it is cylcing through colors that is a pattern. Static/dynamic is not about moving versus not moving or changing versus not changing. Movement and change can be patterns.

You asked me for an example of something that is truly static. The hard question would be to describe something that is truly dynamic. If it could be described it would be static.

Steve


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/


		
---------------------------------
Be a chatter box. Enjoy free PC-to-PC calls  with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.