[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

All,


Marsha:
Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality; Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality.

Tuukka:
In addition, static quality is not the same as DQ, and DQ is not the same as sq.

Marsha:
Dan, maybe this is RMP's notion of balance; to know sq/DQ as the same.

Tuukka:
What a confusing thing to say!


  

>>> Dan:
>>> "But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no
>>> longer apply to Dynamic Quality." [RMP]
>>>
>>> So if static quality and Dynamic Quality are known as the same, why
>>> does Robert Pirsig say once definitions emerge they do not apply to
>>> Dynamic Quality? If they were known as the same, wouldn't the opposite
>>> be said to be true?
>>>

Tuukka:
DQ can be defined, but the definition is useless for traditional logical 
purposes. See: 
http://www.todellisuudenomistaja.net/suhteutuvuus-ja-sen-seurauksia/#comment-802

Dynamic Quality is, technically, a nonrelativizably used predicate. The 
worst case scenario for using such predicates is that any statement, 
whose truth value is contingent with regards to the truth value of a 
nonrelativizably used predicate, is equivalent to a contradiction. And 
no, I don't care whether anyone understands that previous sentence. 
People complain to me about all kinds of things.

 From a rather narrow logical point of view, the best case scenario for 
using predicates nonrelativizably, is that we eventually manage to 
relativize them in a new and innovative way.

-Tuukka