[MD] SQ patterns vs concepts

[MarshaV]

On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Magnus Berg wrote:

> On 2010-08-22 17:34, MarshaV wrote:

>> Marsha:
>> The fact that static patterns of value are all that is conceptualized,
>> does not mean that a pattern is a concept.
> 
> Magnus:
> Right, did I say something differently? Wouldn't you want to say that to Andre really? He was the one who said that mother-instinct and self-sacrifice was concepts.

Since you neglected to repost what you wrote, hard for me to answer your first question.  As far as Andre's statements, also missing, mother-instinct and self-sacrifice are patterns  conceptualized.  I'm guessing that is what he meant.  


> 
>> Marsha:
>> A pattern exists across
>> many individuals and across many generations of time.  To me,
>> they are ever-changing, relative and impermanent.
>> 
>> Do you see a problem with this?
> 
> Magnus:
> Just that you just said two quite contradictory statements. First you say they do exist across individuals and generations, then you say they change. How do you know they are the same patterns?



I meant that patterns are not individual, bounded, discrete, independent, entities.  To repeat patterns exist across many individuals and across many generations of of time.  Patterns are ever-changing, relative and impermanent.  Ever-changing, relative and impermanent does not mean without similarity.  Experiences can be very different and still hang together as similar to other experiences.  The repetition and similarity create the pattern, yes?   


 
___