[MD] now it comes

[MarshaV]

On Aug 13, 2010, at 5:27 PM, craigerb at comcast.net wrote:

> [Marsha]
>> This is my favorite thing to think about. A pattern,
>> to my understanding, is held only in bits and pieces
>> in a single individual, making it definitely
>> relative.
> 
> .
> IMHO this view loses a lot of explanatory value.
> If we want to explain the Grand Canyon by the
> pattern of the Colorado River, that pattern has to
> be in Arizona, not you or I.

Wouldn't the Colorado River and Arizona be other 
patterns of value that may have bits and pieces that 
interconnect with the Grand Canyon?  I don't see a 
problem.


> .
> 
> [Krimel]
>> I also think that "pattern" as a concept
>> is the product or our
>> interaction with the world not a necessary feature
>> of the world. We are
>> biologically programmed to detect patterns. 
>> But I see those "patterns" as Tits.
>> The particular arrangements of primal
>> stuff may be out there but it is our perception
>> and use of them that makes
>> them into patterns.


> Craig:.
> This seems contradictory. If something is a TiT,
> then what it is, is not dependent of us.
> So a pattern cannot be a TiT. Nor is it clear
> that a "particular arrangements of primal
> stuff" is not a pattern.


Marsha:
In my understanding, patterns are ever-changing,
interconnecting, relative and impermanent.  


 
___