[MD] cloud of probability

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Jan-Anders Andersson
<jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
>
> 13 jun 2011 kl. 21.06 marsha wrote:
>
>> Neat little trick Dan taught me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Delete.
>>
>J-A:
> Better watch your portion of celebrity left Marsha:

Dan:

I think Marsha is pointing to my answer to Craig's (admitted)
nonsensical question. I could have said "mu" or "f-u" or some other
such witticism but hitting the delete button seemed like the best
answer. I don't know... I kind of liked it...

>J-A:
> "Celebrity is to social patterns as sex is to biological patterns. Now he was getting it. This celebrity is Dynamic Quality within a static social level of evolution. It looks and feels like pure Dynamic Quality for a while, but it isn't. Sexual desire is the Dynamic Quality that primitive biological patterns once used to organize themselves. Celebrity is the Dynamic Quality that primitive social patterns once used to organize themselves. That gives celebrity a new importance.
>
> None of this celebrity has any meaning in a subject-object universe.
> But in a value-structured universe celebrity comes roaring to the
> front of reality as a huge fundamental parameter. It becomes an
> organizing force of the whole social level of evolution. Without this celebrity force, advanced complex human societies might be impossible. Even simple ones."
>
> RMP Lila. ch 20
>
> Can you see this force working here and now Marsha? The MOQ is using patterns, static and dynamic. Please don't deny that or write a new book: "How I left Quality for Good.".

Dan:

No such thing as Dynamic patterns, but be that as it may, sounds like
a good title for a book. I might tweak it a bit and say: "How I left
Good for Quality" but that's just me...

>J-A:
> My celebrity points goes to David and Horse and you're losing. But I think you're calcuating on getting some inverted points from the fact that David has to express himself very clear to meet your bickering.

Dan:
I don't know... I think Marsha is holding her own... I may not always
agree with her but she does make some good points.

>J-A:
> There is a thread about free will going on. Free will is a dynamic ever changing pattern.
Free will is chosing between static patterns with different value.

Dan:

No. Any time we follow static quality, we are without choice. And
again, Dynamic Quality isn't a pattern! It is only when we follow
Dynamic Quality that we are free, since there are no patterns to
follow.

J-A:
Any time a buyer values the good higher than the money he act and an
exchange is done. That is the ultimate base in all business going on
around the world and were all the values behind money is created. The
buyer gets a thing that he values higher than the amount of money, i e
the price for it, and the seller is making a profit from the money he
gets over when his costs are deducted. Betterness reified as profit
value. Price tags on goods in a shop are fixed. Customers, tax
attorneys and shop owners would go mad if price and the value of goods
and money were ever changing unstable and unstatic patterned. Over
time of course, there is always some change and evolution but in
practice, we see and act as the price and value on things and duties
are static. Price is an intellectual value, free from religious,
racial or politi
>  cal boundaries at the social level but yet dependant of them just as social values are free from, but dependant on, biological and inorganic value systems.

Dan:

You obviously haven't been following the real estate market here in
the US, my friend. Now, there was a time when real estate was looked
upon as a profit-value situation. No more. The prices of real estate
have been dropping, dropping, dropping.

Price is a perception of value. People buy things for the damnedest
reasons. I sold a house once when the woman discovered a built-in
ironing board in the kitchen! She went crazy over it! Talked her
husband into buying the house! She perceived that ironing board as
something of value and had to have it. Pity they lost the house a
couple years later to foreclosure...

>J-A:
> Cheap dog no good

Dan:
Cheap cats are cool though...

Dan