[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[MarshaV]

Hi Platt,

Patterns are in flux like everything else.  Patterns are relative to one's
immediate experience and different "because each person has a different
static pattern of life history", and both immediate experience and history
change. 

Somewhere RMP states that Quality represent process and events rather than
entities. Processes and events are about experience rather than
subjects/objects. 

The four levels are fine with me, but my opinion is that a fifth emerging
Quality level would increase the MoQ's explanatory power.  It's how I
imagine it, and just a suggestion.  

Change?  All patterns come and go, and since dynamic quality is unknowable,
there is no way to verify whether it changes or doesn't.  It's probably not
a good idea to get caught in your beliefs about change.  

If I have been unclear, continue to ask for clarification.  Your questions
are good for me.  


Marsha



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
plattholden at gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:39 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Marsha's (s)OL

On 13 Oct 2009 at 1:03, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> Platt,
> 
> Patterns are memories, customs, habits, rituals, interpretations, rules,
and
> patterns of nature.  Rules of grammar and the rules of logic would be
> intellectual static patterns of value.  They are the rules to objectify
and
> manipulate the concepts and symbols in the Intellectual Level.  RMP has
said
> that the Intellectual patterns are those such as theology, science,
> philosophy and mathematics.  I understand patterns, in general, also to be
> ever-changing, interrelated, interconnected, relative and conceptually
> constructed.  The word 'process' was used because patterns are NOT
> independent, thing-in-themselves, but events and processes.  For me, the
> most important thing is that Quality is unpatterned experience and
patterned
> experience. 
>  
>  
> Marsha 
> 

Marsha,

I'm still bothered by static patterns that are "ever-changing" and static 
symbols that "represent" processes. Seems everything is in a constant 
state of flux except such concepts as patterns, processes, symbols and 
changes. Others will brush aside my concern as simply the paradoxical 
nature of language. But I don't detect any allowance for change in 
Pirsig's basic metaphysical structure of the four static moral levels plus 
DQ. Grant one exception and the whole notion of constant change 
collapses. I agree that Quality (reality) consists of unpatterned and 
patterned experience. I believe, however, that some patterns of 
experience never change including those two components of  Quality 

Platt 


> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
> plattholden at gmail.com
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 6:41 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Marsha's (s)OL
> 
> On 12 Oct 2009 at 16:27, MarshaV wrote:
> 
> > I added my original post at the bottom of this one, but let me repeat,
> 'The
> > Intellectual Level is comprised of patterns that represent the process
of
> > objectifying and manipulating abstract symbols: "Objectification is the
> > process by which abstract concepts are treated as if they were concrete
> > things or physical objects.  In this  
> > sense the term is synonym to reification."'  This is my description of
the
> > patterns the inhabit the Intellectual level.  I do not agree that
> intellect
> > is "simply thinking". There is no 'simply thinking' within  the MoQ;
there
> > is unpatterned experience (DQ) and patterned experience (sq = static
> > patterns of value).  
> 
> Hi Marsha,
> 
> I like this but have a couple of questions. When you say, "The 
> intellectual level is comprised of patterns that represent the process of 
> objectifying and manipulating abstract symbols, " I wonder what you 
> mean by "patterns" and "represent." Does "patterns" refer to 
> grammatical rules perhaps? Do the symbols employed in 
> communicating grammatical rules comprise what is doing the 
> "representing?" In other words, I'm trying to identify the patterns you 
> refer to at the beginning and the symbols that "represent the process."
> 
> Maybe this is a case of the snake swallowing its tail (strange loop) or
the 
> impossibility of defining a symbolic (representative) system with other 
> symbols. Or maybe, and most likely, I'm making a mountain out of mole 
> hole. 
> 
> Anyway, your last line is classic. One for my keeper book.
> 
> Platt 

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/