[MD] Chance

[Ron Kulp]

[Ham]
As I understand it, Dynamic Quality is Value in the absolute
metaphysical 
sense, while Static Quality is a reference to particular (i.e. relative)

values. If my interpretation is correct, then we needn't speak of DQ as 
having anything to do with choices or preferences as exhibited by
inorganic 
or organic entities, inasmuch as no finite organism experiences it.  

[Krimel]
Your understanding here is incorrect. Dynamic Quality is in no sense
absolute. It is Heraclitian. It is ever changing and unpredictable. It
is
the source of novelty. It is full of surprises. It is "Aha" and "Oops".
It
is deterministic but unpredictable. It is seen in the creation and
destruction of worlds.

Ron:
This discussion illustrates the need for clarity in meaning in MoQ
Terms. What has to be realized is that Quality is dynamic as per 
Krimel. Dynamic quality has meaning only in reference to static quality
And their context of reference. Therefore Ham mixes context and
Understandably comes out with conflicts.

As Ham shows us, when we use DQ/SQ intellectually to define
The intellectual concept of Quality it creates modulations
Of the container paradox. Essentially rendering DQ null
And void, leaving us to discuss this static realm that
Is now separated from it's source which plays right
Into Hams thesis. We say he's got it wrong but we are unable
To precisely tell him why he's mistaken about DQ.