[MD] SQ patterns vs concepts

[Magnus Berg]

Hi all

On 2010-08-22 13:25, David Thomas wrote:
> On 8/22/10 4:15 AM, "MarshaV"<valkyr at att.net>  wrote:
>
>> Marsha:
>> Patterns existing "outside our concepts of them" seems to make it a SOM issue,
>> but I could be wrong.  Do patterns exist as independent entities?
>
> Depends. If you want to looked at them universally then, no. All patterns
> are parts of smaller and larger patterns such that ultimately all is one.

Size has nothing to do with it. Or rather, whenever size is involved, 
the only aspect you're looking at is the inorganic.

> But this is not very helpful idea when trying to make breakfast. The belief
> that supping on the concept of a egg is the same as dining on "independent
> entity" egg in your refrigerator, will eventually will lead to the demise of
> the pattern Marsha.  Pragmatism would say, "Yes, that it is reasonable thing
> to believe their really is an "outside world out there" until a better way
> of understanding that experience comes along." But there hasn't been one to
> date. It leaves open the possibility that all is illusion, but suggests it
> would not be prudent to act as if this is true.

To me, the MoQ says:

Since I am able to conceptualize an experience, *and* the intellectual 
patterns that those concepts are made of are dependent on lower and 
lower levels until we reach the inorganic reality of the original 
experience, *then* the concept is a part of the same reality in which 
the experience happened. And also, since that concept becomes an 
integral part of *me*, *I* am also a part of that same reality.

That's the MoQ equivalent to Descartes "I think, therefore I am". But 
since the MoQ assumes more about how reality is made, i.e. the levels, 
then we can also prove more using the original assumption "I think".

	Magnus