[MD] relatively static

[MarshaV]

On Apr 14, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Jan Anders Andersson wrote:

> 14 apr 2013 kl. 11.18 skrev MarshaV:
> 
>> 
>> Greetings J-A,
>> 
>> Many is not all.  There's a difference between an universal qualifier and an existential qualifier.  I do appreciate the usefulness of concepts, but I hold all static patterns of value to be hypothetical, especially those I present.  I find it more useful to consider objects of knowledge (stuff in the encyclopedia) as 'static patterns of value' ("patterns") rather than 'truths'.
> 
> "More" useful.... This is the old SOM vs MOQ stuff. You pick the right side. But nothing new.


Okay, nothing new.. 

...  more below. ...
___


On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:56 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:

> 
> 15 apr 2013 kl. 08.31 MarshaV wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Greetings J-A,
>> 
>> On Apr 14, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>>> J-A:
>>>>> why should you burn the clay?
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> Before (when soft and malleable) and after a firing (when firm), the clay is still in a constant state of changing.
>>> 
>>> J-A:
>>> Sure, but the important thing about the usefulness, the value, during the pot's time, is that it is hard enough to keep the content from leaking out of it.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> A different point-of-view might be that the functioning value of the pot is the empty space inside it.
> 
> J-A:
> Hey, Straw man, that was not the question.

What specifically was the question?  


>>> You sound like that stablity is constantly inferior to change.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> No, I've made no such judgmental statement.
> 
> JA:
> Yes you did by using the words "more useful" which you just accidentally snipped out...

The "more useful" was applied to a different context.  Please tie them together so I might understand your point.  (see text above)


>>> I say that they are even and that all we know about this ever-change is patterned.
>> 
>> I agree that static patterns of value are objects of knowledge that represent what we conventionally know.  
>> 
>> Hmmm.  Can one know what a pattern is not?  
> 
> J-A:
> Nothing could be easier: Nothingness, No-thingness. Also, according to your ever-changing theology: As everything is under a constant flux of change, What a pattern is, now, is not what it was before and not what it will be later. So, what a pattern is not is what it was before and it is also what it will be in the future. :-)

It is not anti-intellectual or a contradiction to understand that patterns may maintain a static, stable identity at the same time as they and their context are undergoing constant change. Think of the Ship of Theseus, or a parade (Hume) where everyone drops out but is replaced so that the parade is maintained, or the body with its cells constantly being replaced.  Things can change - flow - and yet have permanence; think of a river. Above all  (the MoQ being in agreement with Radical Empiricism) this definition agrees with my experience.  :-) 

I sometimes like to consider a pattern, justice for instance, as all that is opposite-non-justice.  But we've been down this path before.   


 

> 
> Have a nice day Marsha and take it easy with that piece of clay
> 


You have a nice day too.  And don't squeeze the accordion too much.


Marsha