[MD] The hard question.

[MarshaV]

dmb & Andre,

I have no thoughts that you are wrong.  I just don't see it as an either/or choice.


Peace,

Marsha




On May 19, 2012, at 1:03 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Andre said to Marsha:
> 
> The point is not to agree or disagree Marsha. Dan is simply expressing the notion that there are elegantly simple definitions which really have a beauty of their own...and unwieldy ones... like yours!  It is similar to your unwieldy definition of static patterns of value, which for you are 'everchanging ladidadida...(i.e 4 sentences to follow that are completely contradictory and therefore confusing) comprising your 'definition'. Anthony simply describes them as 'repeated arrangements'. And if, as you claim, you have read LILA you have no problem with this elegantly simple definition. It is very clear and very economical.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> Exactly. Marsha's definition of "static patterns" is a confusing and contradictory salad of words. Even if it weren't contradictory and incoherent, it would still be about 1000% longer than it needs to be. 
> 
> Why not just say that static patterns are "repeated arrangements" or "stable configurations" or "steady structures"? Marsha's definition isn't just ten times longer, her inclusion of "ever-changing" as part of the description simply contradicts the main idea of static patterns, which is the stable, steady, repeating work they do. If they were ever-changing, they couldn't be patterns and they couldn't be static. Marsha's definition could hardly be worse or more misleading.                            
>