[MD] Paradox

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Marsha]
> I hope Arlo does not mind me reposting it; I only save posts I think are the
> most brilliant.
>
> [Arlo]
> Arlo doesn't mind, although since I was not a part of your disagreement with
> DMB, I am not sure what kind of "HA!" John thinks this conveys, but oh well.
> Nor am I sure your point?
>
> But since this seems to imply your asking me my thoughts, and to clarify,
> I'll chime in.
>
> First, I agree with Dave in that presenting only two options (ever-changing
> and never-changing) is wrong. I also agree that Dynamic Quality is best
> understood as "ever-changing", so using that term to describe static quality
> unnecessarily conflates and confuses the two.

Hi Arlo

I would issue a caution that Dynamic Quality cannot be understood in
an intellectual sense. "It" comes before intellectualization. I
understand you to say by "ever-changing" that Dynamic Quality is "not
this, not that." And that's okay. But it should be stressed that
change as we understand it is a static quality pattern, as is "not
this, not that," and every "thing" we discuss.

Otherwise, I fully agree.

Thank you,

Dan