[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[MarshaV]

Hello Magnus


At 05:38 AM 9/24/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha
>
>>To me all significance is found in the nature of patterns.  And I'm 
>>afraid I am not the one to explain this to you.  In some ways, it 
>>does undermine "science" as we "know" it.  (I think you can say it 
>>undermines economics too.)
>
>Yes, I agree patterns undermines all sciences. However, since 
>patterns are the one "thing" that connects all sciences, I think we 
>can use that connection to somehow find that least common denominator.

I don't know what to say here.



>>Directly experiencing phenomenon is possible, but requires 
>>awareness which happens seldom.  It's mostly the patterns that 
>>cause the confusion.  I have come to understand patterns as the 
>>conceptual opposite-from-non-(elephants for example).
>
>I'm not a fan of that opposite-from-non-thingy. I actually don't 
>understand what it means, or how it explains anything. To me, it's 
>just a game with words. And the only thing it accomplishes is to 
>force me to make two successive negations, which just brings me back 
>to where I was.

Opposite-from-non-entity(phenomenon/concept)  to me is a pattern, and 
is the same for all patterns.  What would the pattern of an elephant 
be?  It would be all one knows and associates with the name/label 
elephant.  It would be opposite from everything that is not 
elephant.  'Opposite-from-non-' includes everything that is pertinent 
concerning elephant but does not wander off to unintended 
confusion.  It is all general information, but also all specific 
information.  It is pattern through and through, interconnected and 
ever-changing.  This pattern may include being embarrassed at missing 
the proper spelling of e-l-e-p-h-a-n-t in a third-grade spelling bee.

You see a shape and identify it as 'elephant', and the pattern 
representing elephant floods the mind.  Seeing becomes 
inconsequential (unless, of course, the elephant is charging at 
you).  It seems so clear to me, I could play mental volleyball with a 
pattern, maybe paint one. (Oh-oh!)   This direct experience of seeing 
this particular 'elephant' also becomes ingested into 
elephant-pattern.  Elephant pattern is both general and particular 
experience.

It's all conceptual.  Whether you are a scientist, or a dentist, or 
ice cream salesman, it's all conceptual.

There is no elephant other than this conceptual pattern.  Or,,, that 
which I originally saw was not an 'elephant' or any of its 
associations.  What a wonder!   Least common denominator?   Empty of 
independent existence!



>>Phenomenon is there, but not in the patterns.  Within the patterns 
>>it is only symbolically represented.
>
>I'd say it's only intellectual patterns that can "symbolically" 
>represent anything, but I would agree if you used the "statically" 
>instead. I think your phenomenon is pretty close to Q itself, i.e. a 
>quality event with DQ influence.

In my mind, ALL patterns are symbolic, static, analogous 
representations of conceptual entities.  Some whose referent is 
phenomenon (inorganic/biological) and some whose referent is purely 
conceptual (social/intellectual).



>>I did read your paper.  I do not think that additional levels will 
>>solve the problem.  Again, I see the significance in the nature of patterns.
>>Understanding that nature of patterns changes everything.  It 
>>totally changes how one relates.  It is betterness.
>
>The additional levels doesn't show your significance, no. But I 
>think it *does* show, by reasoning about how I found those new 
>levels, the nature of patterns.

I attempted to read your paper again, but in the first few pages 
there is so much reference to "objects" that I get too frustrated.  I 
just feel even more strongly that the key is understanding the nature 
of patterns.  Calling them "objects" just doesn't do it.

I must give you much credit for how deeply you must care about the 
MOQ to write such a paper.  I love you for writing it.  I'll try 
again to read it when I can more easily convert your "objects" into 
my opposite-from-non- patterns.

I love the patterns, though, they are as empty as sky-flowers, but so 
very beautiful...


Marsha






.
.