[MD] Pattern

[Marsha]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Pattern


>>>[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.
>

Greetings Krimel,

Talking about patterns, not insinuating objective anything might be useful. 
I've been thinking about the guitar.  I cannot imagine that there is much to 
our shared experience, not even form, or color, or experienced music.  Of 
course I love how Jimi Hendrix transformed R&R, but that's not my most loved 
guitar experience.  You wrote of  'subjective experience', but that's just 
more talk of patterns.  At the moment I'm not sure how to best talk about 
our shared experience.  Maybe at best we can say is that we share the 
experience of being comprised of patterns.

>
>> [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.

I have been taught that the double negative is a no-no, but in this case it 
seems useful.  There is something about opposite-from-non-zebra that points 
to the complexity of the zebra pattern, or conceptual web.  It points to 
more than there is a zebra or there isn't a zebra.

What is interesting to me is how quickly these conceptual patterns overlay 
direct perception.  When I was reading of your guitar experience, my guitar 
experiences immediately filled my mind and became predominate.  I can 
understand how having preintellectual experiences are thwarted by the speed 
of existing patterns automatically dominating.  It's the 'automatically' 
that is troublesome.  And of course thinking it is in some way directly 
connected to the momentary experience.

In Buddhism, the purpose of their logic, especially the use of the double 
negative, is to take one eventually to the emptiness of self.


Marsha