[MD] When is a pattern not static?

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

 Ron


> Ron:
> It is, the language we are using is subject object heavy. It implies
> Excluded middles. A distinction must be made in order to talk about
> Anything but It helps to understand they are aspects of value. Not
> distinct
> Entities in themselves.

So the MOQ says yes.

> Chris:
> but you do have a point: Everything is quality,
> but from a MOQ perspective, which overwrites the SOM perspective
> everything
> is either Static Patterns of Value, or Dynamic Quality, the latter we
> cannot
> put into words, since when we do so it will be static.
>
> Ron:
> from our perception yes, but theoretically it is all the same dynamic
> process.

In the sense that everything is derived from Dynamic Quality sure, but even 
from a MOQ perspective one must say that what we observe as static patterns 
are really static patterns - patterns who are more or less able to react and 
interpret Quality. The thing is: it is from this perspective that the MOQ 
becomes meaningful to us.

> Chris:
> But I don't really
> think there is a big disagreement here since we all agree on the view
> that
> everything is Quality, Value.
>
> Ron:
> No disagreement really, but it does effect a discussion if there is a
> Conflict of opinions on this matter, analytic thinking may sneak in
> And murder a concept before it gets off the ground just by language
> alone
> And the associated thinking that's attached to it. (which is analytic by
> nature). So static/ dynamic isn't really a split. But are convenient
> terms
> To express a type of distinction.. it's the expression of a distinction
> Which creates the illusion of distinct and separate entities especially
> when we begin to use them in abstractions for comprehension of their
> relationships. I really don't think there is a recognition of
> subject/object
> Until this level of abstracting distinctions is realized. SOM may be
> unique
> To Greek culture simply based on how the language system refers to
> Distinctions, the Greeks saw s/o because that was how the language
> Treated the distinctions, which in turn developed into a rational
> Way of connecting and expressing ideas in certain terms.

Ah, so perhaps you would agree that that distinction that was made is so 
fundamental in it's design of a new way of interpreting everything that it 
would constitute the 4th level?

> I'm teaching my daughter to read English, which I find out is a
> Collection of terms borrowed from other lexicons. Therefore
> There are no hard fast rules on pronunciation, I find that
> Just using English to express ideas channels those ideas in a particular
> fashon.

> Do you find flipping from your native language to English conflicts with
> meaning In cases of comprehension?

Not really, English comes quite natural to me, even though the spelling 
often is a bit under the weather - the same goes for Swedish actually, from 
a small age I have always concentrated on the whole picture of understanding 
rather than care for the small details, such as spelling - much to my 
teachers dismay =) Most of the time, I think and reason in Swedish and 
English together  at the same time. It is too bad that English speakers can't 
understand the word "Lagom" though - an incredibly Dynamic word! =)

Regards

Chris