[MD] psst, Squonk, Over here

[MarshaV]

At 08:11 AM 11/1/2006, you wrote:
>At 05:30 PM 10/31/2006, Mark wrote:
>
> >Mark 31-10-06:
> >How  can patterns, which are supposed to be static, be Dynamic also?
> >The  language is confusing don't you think?
>
>Mark,
>
>I'm not persuaded  that change can be defined any more than DQ.  But
>don't worry about the  confusion, it may be that confusion is the
>mother of  insight.
>
>Marsha
>
>Mark 1-11-06: Hello Marsha.
>Maybe the answer is simply that nothing is static anyway?
>
>In a stream or flux everything changes, even individual atoms. In fact,
>there may not be individual atoms?
>The term, 'stable' patterns has been suggested as a replacement for,
>'static'.
>What do you think?
>
>Love,
>Mark


Hi Mark,

Language is tricky, but I've never thought of 'static' as meaning: 
without movement.  I've more thought of 'static' as meaning: having 
limited movement (more or less).  I think the word 'stable' has a 
connotation that is too positive, so I don't much like it as a 
replacement.  But maybe the confusion is JUST in the language.  For 
instance, within science a word might have a more precise meaning 
than it does for a layperson.

Marsha