[MD] [Bulk] Re: cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

What are you, twelve-years-old?  


On Jun 15, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Marsha:
> 
> You seem not to understand the MoQ.
> 
> Andre:
> I assume this comment was directed at me because you used a fragment of my conversation with Jan-Anders.So I'll use that as the directive.
> You are correct Marsha, I will not pretend to understand anything about the MOQ.
> 
> Marsha:
> Marsha is a flow of events, not the object of your projection.
> 
> Andre:
> Now here it gets interesting. Are you saying that "Marsha" is the MOQ?
> 
> I assume that this is your position knowing that you have left yourself plenty of bucket space to get yourself out of it should the need arise.
> 
> The MOQ indeed points to, as you call them, "events". They are processes. They are a program outlining patterns of value arranged within a evolutionary framework. What you still do not grasp is that the MOQ is a static intellectual pattern of value describing, from its vantage point, these static patterns of value within an evolutionary framework.
> 
> This makes "Marsha" a static pattern of value. "Marsha" is an evolving jungle of static patterns of value. Yes Marsha, you are a 'flow of events' as you claim, but this 'flow of events' is repeated, stable, and therefore to a certain degree predictable. And I hope you understand why this is not completely predictable. We have reached a level of sentience whereby we have evolved choice. Choice about following static patterns or Dynamic Quality...freedom.
> 
> My argument in my post was simply to assert that you follow those patterns we have come to expect from you. And you deliver! You are a static pattern of value, following all these wonderful events one after another in predictable ways. THAT is what the MOQ means by static patterns of value Marsha.
> 
> I presume that you think that your 'flow' denotes Dynamic Quality. No way! Your flow, interdependent as it is with your 'events' is that which strings your (static) events together...and therefore is also a static response. And your responses over the years confirm this.
> 
> Dynamic Quality is not part of the MOQ Marsha. DQ is a static intellectual reference. Never lose it amongst the static. Never confuse it with the static.
> 
> The MOQ is a static intellectual pattern of value. You seem to equate "Marsha" with the MOQ... "Marsha" as the evolving jungle of static patterns of value, ever flowing and therefore Dynamic. Yep, you never step in the same river twice. True. You never get up in the morning in exactly the same way. But that is not the point. The fact that you are getting up because getting up is better than lying down and staying where you are...that is a dynamic quality decision. But it seems to me you are making the same mistake Bodvar made: you are equating experience with the MOQ.
> 
> But the MOQ is NOT experience! It is not your experience. It may point towards it but it is not your experience. For goodness sake. It is an intellectual representation of it. An idea. And a wonderfully high quality idea it is. The best I have ever experienced...to take me from one flow of events to another!
> 
> The old adage again: DQ is NOT to be confused with sq. sq is NOT to be confused with DQ. 'Fundamentally' they are Quality but do not confuse them.
> 
> It's a beautiful idea though and as the man said: "...not necessarily untrue".
> 
> 


 
___