[MD] patterns revisited

[MarshaV]

At 08:19 AM 11/3/2008, you wrote:
>[Marsha]
> > Names, definition and other
> > knowledge about trees and rocks is conceptually constructed patterns
> > of static value, on a flow of dynamic quality.
>
>Yes, but don't mistake the menu for the food.
>The names 'Colorado River' & 'Grand Canyon' are only a few centuries
>old.  The concepts 'river' & 'canyon' a few centuries older than that.
>But a river has been cutting thru that canyon for thousands upon
>thousands of years.  If the river was conceptual, then as Pirsig says,
>where was the concept:
>"Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy of its own,
>not in anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone, not in space
>because there was no space either, not anywhere"
>(ZMM, p.29)
>
>[Marsha]
> > Please suggest an inorganic spov that is not conceptual?
>
>All of them.
>Craig

Craig,

Sorry to take so long to respond.

I have obviously not explained my thinking very well, and would like 
to give it a little more time to see if I might find a better way to 
demonstrate the idea that patterns are conceptual.  Or to see the 
error in my thinking.  Or to accept that words are all a trap.

You are a sweet butterfly,


Marsha




.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a 
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.