[MD] patterns revisited

[MarshaV]

At 01:03 PM 10/20/2008, you wrote:
>Marsha:
>When I say the nature of all patterns is conceptual, I'm saying that
>patterns are mental in nature.  They are held in minds.  What an
>individual pattern refers to can be categorized as inorganic,
>biological, social and intellectual.   This is important.  The
>pattern is the static part of the experience, it is not the experience.
>
>
>woods:
>     Yes, pattern is the static part of the experience.  Yet, I 
> still find organic
>patterns, social patterns, inorganic patterns, and intellectual 
>patterns.  You
>seem to be focused upon intellectual patterns.

No I am not focusing on intellectual patterns.  I'm stating that the 
static part of all patterns of value are in human minds.





>Marsha:
>The referent of inorganic and biological level patterns are external,
>natural phenomenon.  Kind of like things.  But there really are no
>'things'.  There are only ever-changing, interrelated, overlapping
>systems and processes.  Nature does not name, define or isolate.
>
>
>woods:
>     A tree defines it's self with its' own patterned system.  Yet, it is
>rooted in the earth and part of a larger world.  Independent things
>aren't around.  Yet, the tree does have its' own pattern that this
>tree is developing without my intellectual patterning as to what this
>tree pattern is.  The tree will pattern whether I'm intellectualizing
>about this tree, and thus overlaying my intellectual patterns upon
>this tree or not.

A phenomena, like a tree, does not exist as an independent entity in 
nature.  Nature doesn't differentiate, humans do using static 
patterns.  Without the static pattern of value there is no 
differentiated tree.

I don't think we can go any further.  Our understanding of patterns 
is too far apart.

Thank you, I've enjoyed the exchange.


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.
.
.