> [David Harding]
> > [balance]...something that works between both, two things and the 
> universal
>  > order. 
> 
> Now you've gone from 3 things (something that is balance & two other 
> things) to 4 things (something that is balance, two other things & 
> universal order).  Why not keep it to 2 things:  balance is interaction, 
> between two things, that works.
> Craig  

Hi Craig and Mark.

Apologies to you both, I agree with you DQ and SQ cannot be balanced! Balance is in regards to two things.  DQ is not a thing.  

I originally created this description of a balance between DQ and SQ to actually deal with, among other things(including yin/yang), this statement:

"If you compare the levels of static patterns that compose a human being to the ecology of a forest, and if you see the different patterns sometimes in competition with each other, sometimes in symbiotic support of each other, but always in a kind of tension that will shift one way or the other, depending on evolving circumstances, then you can also see that evolution doesn’t take place only within societies, it takes place within individuals too."  

I could see how, those patterns which were in opposition with each other were statically in opposition, and those 'patterns' which which were in support, were in support simply by following DQ (or the Code of Art).  But then as a result we have SQ and DQ,  and there's nothing to be gained from 'balancing' them! DQ already alludes to the 'working' philosophical concept of balance!  Why create a second definition of balance which overthrows DQ into static territory? (As you both have been saying to me)

Anyway, all RMP is saying IMHO in the above paragraph is quite simple, sometimes patterns don't work with DQ, sometimes they do.

This brings us back to The Code of Art definition. I've changed the last sentence to this:

"Because static patterns exist it is important to emphasize the difficulty of everything following the Code of Art.   While maintaining biological and social patterns it can be followed using the concept of [[rta]]."

What do you think? 

That just leaves us, or it does me at least, with two concepts in the air from the now defunct balance of DQ and SQ:  Roberts Rules of Order would go under 'How to avoid, culturally, things becoming too static'  and the yin/yang symbol which I now think would go under, Quality or DQ.  

Thanks for both your input.

Cheers,

David.