[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[MarshaV]

At 01:08 PM 9/19/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha
>
>>Nobody is stating nothing is real.  Mutually, interdependent, 
>>static patterns of value is a better description.
>
>Yes, I agree it's a better description, but I'm a bit burnt by how 
>people usually follow that description to its conclusion. The 
>problem usually starts as they start dissecting which different 
>types of patterns there are, and if those types are, as the thread 
>name states, discrete and dependent. The end result is often that 
>the levels are neither discrete nor very dependent and on top of 
>that they are also degraded to a "convenient" division of reality 
>but with no real connection to it. At this point, the original 
>statement about "interdependent patterns" are long forgotten and no 
>second thought is given to the fact that the removal of 
>discreteness, dependency and realness have perverted the original 
>sound statement into a very flat and incoherent slogan.
>
>>>>In the MOQ there are no things-in-themselves.  This is clearly 
>>>>stated in the Copleston paper.
>>>
>>>Must have missed that, any pointers?
>>
>>First page, first paragraph.
>>http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm
>
>Ah, forgive my ignorance about the term things-in-themselves. I was 
>confused, probably because you connected it with my example of the 
>moon vs. pointing at the moon. I thought it meant something like, 
>"There are no things outside of our perception of it."

Ah, yes, here's where it does get impossible.


>But in that case, yes, I agree that in the MoQ, there are no 
>things-in-themselves, i.e. a thing does not exist independently of 
>other things, only in relationships with other things.

But isn't it like the moment you interact with phenomenon, like 
conceptualize this phenomenon, it is no longer the phenomenon, but 
the static, conceptualized-version, with it's relationships severed, 
it processes altered.  It seems to me it would be as the difference 
between dead and alive.   I doubt that science ever gets to direct 
experience of phenomenon without conceptualization.  And this is 
where science gets defensive and wants to walk away from such a 
point-of-view.   It's a total lack of humility.  (Such nerve I 
have!!!)   But we both know there are lots of examples where new 
theories were ignored because there was so much already invested in the old.


BUT! The exact same goes for patterns as well. In the MoQ, there are 
neither things-in-themselves nor patterns-in-themselves. A pattern 
only exists in relationship with other patterns of the same level. 
This is directly deduced by the quality event where Q produces S and 
O. And when combining that Q -> S/O formula with the levels, we get 
different types of quality events depending on which level is involved.

Yes, I agree a pattern only exists in relationship with other 
patterns of the same level.  Maybe interacting with patterns on other 
levels too.




>>It is difficult to predict what this new world-view will give to 
>>us.  It hasn't really been adopted by Western science, so who's to 
>>know.  But it is a better, more accurate point-of-view.  Seeing the 
>>world as a network of interconnected systems (patterns), will be an 
>>improvement.  And you can quote me on that.;-)   Don't you think so?
>
>Of course I agree. And BTW, I see that "network of interconnected 
>system" as social patterns. I was quite pleased when I saw the 
>scientist in "Mindwalk" mention that a systems view of our world is 
>more seriously pursued nowadays. In my book, they are doing research 
>about what the social level is about.

I bought a number of Mindwalk movies to give to family and 
friends.  I still have one unopened.




>>>When physics is investigating small stuff, like quarks and such, 
>>>it's true that they don't find much that resembles *things*, i.e. 
>>>hard stuff that hurts when you get hit by them. But that doesn't 
>>>mean that the piano (which is made of lots of those quarks and 
>>>such) *doesn't* hurt when it hits.
>>And it doesn't mean that the idea of one independent, falling piano 
>>is the best point-of-view either.
>
>No! Wow, that sparked some ideas. Thanks for rattling my cage. :)

I think you're making fun of me.  I know only enough to be dangerous, 
but I think you got my idea.





>>Have all the interrelated causes and conditions been considered for 
>>why that piano fell?  And why that piano was there as opposed to 
>>somewhere else, and etc., and etc. and etc...   There are 
>>interconnections in all directions that may be relevant.  I have 
>>very little knowledge concerning science, so if I go on I will only 
>>make a bigger fool of myself,  I hope my point makes sense.
>
>It makes very much sense. And no, all interrelated causes and 
>conditions have most probably *not* been considered. Gravity for one 
>thing is something that we still don't know exactly what it is. If 
>we did, we would probably be able to produce gravity just like 
>switching on a light bulb.

Now here's where I get downright weird.  I do not believe gravity, or 
a "law of gravity" exists.  There's no phenomenon there, it all 
conceptual.   Intellectual patterns that are useful.  Have I sent you 
fleeing?



>>We are now strangling in the narrow view.
>
>I have a feeling I didn't get the full meaning of that. Would you 
>mind elaborating?


It seems to me the intellectual level is being choked by materialism 
and greed.


Marsha




.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.