[MD] moq thought experiement 1.

[Marsha]

Greetings Squonk,

Sorry to interrupt, but I am trying to understand your point-of-view.  Are 
you suggesting that a static pattern (any static pattern) is permanent, or 
like a thing in itself?  Aren't static patterns still process within the 
field of DQ?

Marsha




----- Original Message ----- 
From: <squonkmuse at talktalk.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiement 1.


>
> dmb says:
> I think the hierarchy of levels already conveys the spectrum that Squonk
> seeks for the MOQ.
>
> Hi David and Ron,
> Yes, it does. But Dynamic function expands the spectrum considerably:
>
> This division of all biological evolutionary patterns into a Dynamic
>
> function and a static function continues on up through higher levels of
>
> evolution. The formation of semi-permeable cell walls to let food in and
>
> keep poisons out is a static latch. So are bones, shells, hide, fur,
>
> burrows, clothes, houses, villages, castles, rituals, symbols, laws and
>
> libraries. All of these prevent evolutionary degeneration.
>
> On the other hand, the shift in cell reproduction from mitosis to meiosis
>
> to permit sexual choice and allow huge DNA diversification is a Dynamic
>
> advance. So is the collective organization of cells into metazoan
>
> societies called plants and animals. So are sexual choice, symbiosis,
>
> death and regeneration, communality, communication, speculative thought,
>
> curiosity and art. (Lila).
>
> The way Pirsig refers to what people intuitively?think of as?dynamic 
> patterns is: Dynamic function.
> The examples of Dynamic functions above are all patterns, so the spectrum 
> is far larger than the 4 levels.
>
>
> David:
> It seems a bit clumsy and confusing to say "dynamic patterns" or "dynamic 
> static patterns".
>
> s: Yes, it is. That's why Pirsig uses the term Dynamic function for those 
> patterns which may be within the same evolutionary level but which are 
> more dynamic. Many people intuitively feel there to be something like 
> dynamic patterns, and so i did not argue with them because i don't wish to 
> continually impose ideas upon those who wish to express themselves.
> In TE1 i stated is as: 'Some static patterns are more dynamic than 
> others.'
> Those static patterns which are more dynamic than others are those 
> described as Dynamic functions of static patterns.
>
> David:
> It seems to undermine the first and most basic distinction in the MOQ...
> ?
> s: Yes, it does.
>
> The increase in versatility is directed toward Dynamic Quality. The 
> increase in power to control hostile forces is
> directed toward static quality. (Lila).
>
> That which is increasing?its versatility is patterns?static quality. How 
> can it be anything else?
> That which is increasing in power to control hostile forces is also static 
> quality. How can it be anything else?
> It seems a bit clumsy and confusing to say?DQ is increasing in 
> versatility.
>
> But fear ye not, the first and most basic distinction in the moq is not 
> actually undermined, as Pirsig explains: some static patterns have a 
> Dynamic function.
>
> squonk
>
>
>
>
> David:
> It seems a bit clumsy and confusing to say "dynamic patterns" or "dynamic 
> static patterns".
>
> s: Yes, it is. That's why Pirsig uses the term Dynamic function for those 
> patterns which may be within the same evolutionary level but which are 
> more dynamic. Many people intuitively feel there to be something like 
> dynamic patterns, and so i did not argue with them because i don't wish to 
> continually impose ideas upon those who wish to express themselves.
> In TE1 i stated is as: 'Some static patterns are more dynamic than 
> others.'
> Those static patterns which are more dynamic than others are those 
> described as Dynamic functions of static patterns.
>
> David:
> It seems to undermine the first and most basic distinction in the MOQ...
> ?
> s: Yes, it does.
>
> The increase in versatility is directed toward Dynamic Quality. The 
> increase in power to control hostile forces is
> directed toward static quality. (Lila).
>
> That which is increasing?its versatility is patterns?static quality. How 
> can it be anything else?
> That which is increasing in power to control hostile forces is also static 
> quality. How can it be anything else?
> It seems a bit clumsy and confusing to say?DQ is increasing in 
> versatility.
>
> But fear ye not, the first and most basic distinction in the moq is not 
> actually undermined, as Pirsig explains: some static patterns have a 
> Dynamic function.
>
> squonk
>
>
> directed toward static quality. (Lila).
>
> That which is increasing?its versatility is patterns?static quality. How 
> can it be anything else?
> That which is increasing in power to control hostile forces is also static 
> quality. How can it be anything else?
> It seems a bit clumsy and confusing to say?DQ is increasing in 
> versatility.
>
> But fear ye not, the first and most basic distinction in the moq is not 
> actually undermined, as Pirsig explains: some static patterns have a 
> Dynamic function.
>
> squonk
> 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/