[MD] Pattern

[Krimel]

>>[Krimel]
>>Other symbolic systems from the written word to music to art, carry
>>Varying degrees of ambiguity but more emotional depth. That depth
>>offers clarity at the expense of precision. But this is why I argue
>>that not all thought is linguistic or symbolic.

[Marsha]
Yes, I have had personal experience with the guitar too.  They are a part of

that opposite-from-non-guitar pattern that overlays present experience. 
What is interesting is that it doesn't seem to be words, or even images. 
Your pattern would be unique to you, mine to me, and there would be overlap 
between our patterns.  Objectivity?  That's a strange definition, a mistaken

definition, illusion, plain wrong.

[Krimel]
What else could objectivity be? We objectify through communication. If I
have an experience that can not be experienced by another and there is no
basis for communication with them then that is a totally subjective
experience. It is private to me; mine alone. When we communicate I try to
show you mine and you show me yours. Language is our shared experience. It
objectifies and is objective. 


> [Krimel]
> But I think what you are getting at is that lots of experience clusters
> around any concept that we have. An idea is a node in a web of 
> associations.
> When we think of a concept it touches that web and the web resonates. Some
> of the elements in the web are verbal and linguistic but some are not. But

> I would agree that they form conceptual patterns.

[Marsha]
Damn!  I just find this concept 'opposite-from-non-zebra (or whatever)' 
really, really interesting.  I seems like pattern to me.  Especially 
considering how little direct experience one realizes.  What else would the 
pattern 'zebra' be?  It's mostly warmed over yesterday's experience.  It's 
not the chattering internal dialog, but it does seem to stimulate that 
dialog.  Yes these patterns are definitely not words and or an image, 
because that would be a particular zebra.

[Krimel]
No doubt it is an interesting exercise to think of "zebra" in terms of
double negation. But you get the same result with quadruple negation or
sextuple negation. Even negations yield equality and odd negation yield
opposites? It seems to me that thinking of "zebra" in terms of "not zebra"
simply to nullify the "not" makes "zebra" into a much larger concept that it
needs to be.

Rather I think of "zebra" in terms of all of the ideas that collide with it.
It is a network of interlinking experience. Yes, those experiences are
warmed over from yesterday. Some of those "zebraesque" experiences have been
warming on the back burn and some on the front. The warmer the experience,
the more "zebralike" it is.

It becomes internal chatter because we have a compulsive need to explain
things even to ourselves.