[MD] Able to change well.

[schoadabyool at talktalk.net]

Hello Magnus,
Ah. I think i'm beginning to see where you are coming from.
After reading your post i begin to suspect that you are not a fan of Dynamic Quality and find it easy to replace it most of the time at least?


This is interesting, because now that i have focused on the area of dynamic functions, i'm beginning to suspect that the examples of dynamic function given in Lila have at their heart the subatomic notion of indeterminacy.
I'm aware that this may look like reductionism, but i'm not so sure.
Can we say that a celebrity is driven by subatomic forces?


Jung correctly identified the possibility of a celebrity figure capable of activating a shadow in the subconscious of Germany. In the process a great many apparently individual psyche became unified.


I think you may be able to see the connection i am seeing Magnus?


Thank you
Ade


Hi Ade 
 
On 2010-08-28 18:39, schoadabyool at talktalk.net wrote: 
> @ I reckon there must be an interface. There isn't one if static is 
> an illusion so that's that and we can forget it. But if static is 
> accepted, then it stands in some relation to Dynamic. One way of 
> doing away with the relationship would be to adopt Marsha's point 
> that there is no static. Marsha pointed out that what we perceive to 
> be static may be changing, so the word static is in this case too 
> insistent. 
 
But that really takes us back to my initial reply. 
 
First of all, there *are* static configurations. For example, in a computer there is no way a zero can become a one or vice versa. We have even error correcting algorithms in place to avoid just that, so that a mail we write at home will get to all others on MD undistorted, and so that a computer can run the same loop in a program billions of times without getting it wrong. Of course, reality catches up with the computer sometimes via a power surge or something, but when a computer works, it's static. 
 
Ok, back to the reality stack, the static dynamic interface is actually found at every quality event. For example, an oxygen can always split up an H2 molecule and put itself between them, but if an oxygen atom finds two H2 molecules, something else will decide which H2 molecule is used. That "something else" is pretty clear in this instance and is the relative distance between them. But the more complex reactions become, and the larger molecules that are constructed, the more complex this "something else" becomes. 
 
I'm not so eager to talk about birth, life and death of patterns because that implies life, and life depends on so many other processes that we *can* look deeper into. 
 
	Magnus 
 
 
 
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/md/archives.html