[MD] Protagoras: everything is relative...

[118]

OK, Marsha.
Thank you for you reflexive writing, I learned a lot about your views on Quality.

Over and out.

Mark

On Oct 27, 2011, at 2:35 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> Mark, 
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions, but thanks for more of your automatic writing....   
> 
> 
> Marsha  
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 27, 2011, at 4:41 PM, 118 wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha,
>> Wow, that is a mouthful, thanks for that.  I guess it takes a static bundle of words to present the static.
>> 
>> If your ever changing is constant, then such a description never changes.  So in term of change, your static never changes, which I guess is why you describe it as static.  A few posts ago I asked you what this change is in reference to.  That is, your processes must change according to something else.  Otherwise your ever changing has no meaning.  If I say I am moving this must be in reference to something else.  
>> 
>> Does the static change with reference to the dynamic?  This would be an interesting idea to explore.  I am looking for metaphors which can promote the interaction between DQ and sq.  any ideas?
>> 
>> Since you seem to have read The Black Swan, you can appreciate that -predictability only works in hindsight.  So your static corresponds to coyote John's notion of The Past, and DQ being the Future.  This would mean that we live between sq and DQ, or, in the present.  What do you think?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:22 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Actually, Mark, here is my definition of static patterns of value: 
>>> 
>>> Static patterns of value are processes: ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and conceptualized.  Ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.   These patterns are categorized into an evolutionary, hierarchical structure consisting of four discrete levels: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.   
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks, 
>>> 
>>> Marsha  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 1:09 PM, MarshaV wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> I consider static patterns of value from two different points of view.  One would be the nature of ALL patterns:  interdependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized.  A second would be by categorization according to their evolutionary function:  inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.  
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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