[MD] The hard question.

[MarshaV]

Hi dmb,

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.                           



Marsha:

My explanation of static patterns of value should be taken as a whole;  it's a paragraph, not a phrase or sentence.  Here: 

'Static patterns of value' are repetitive processes, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.  Within the MoQ, these patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure:  inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns.  Patterns of value have no independent, inherent existence.  Further, these patterns pragmatically exist relative to an individual's static pattern of life history.

Now is it the case that one will fall off the Earth if one explores beyond "repeated arrangements" or "stable configurations" or "steady structures"? 


 
Marsha