[MD] SQ patterns vs concepts

[MarshaV]

On Aug 23, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Magnus Berg wrote:

> On 2010-08-23 12:49, MarshaV wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Neglected? You were the one starting on a blank sheet.
> 
> But sure, let me rephrase that. Have I *ever* suggested anything differently?
> 
> Regarding Andre, I thought you follow the thread in which you participate? Just search for self-sacrifice, it's not that hard.
> 
> And I don't agree they are conceptualized patterns *only*. I think they are patterns in themselves as well, without us conceptualizing them. That's the point of this thread.

Marsha:
No, I don't feel like defending myself from innuendoes.  If you have a case to present, present it in full.     


>>>> 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?
> 
> No, the pattern creates similarity and repetition!

Marsha:
It does probably go both ways.  


> Come on Marsha! Now you're inventing a new metaphysics again.

Marsha: 
I seem to recollect you've invented your own unique interpretation of some aspects of the level structure.  


> If repetition and similarity create the pattern, then repetition and similarity must be more primary stuff of reality than patterns. But they aren't. The MoQ's first division is DQ/SQ, then SQ is divided into the levels containing patterns. Do you see repetition or similarity in there?

Marsha: 
Do you see repetition and similarity not being there?   Pattern, to me, indicates repetition and similarity, as opposed to exactness.  Maybe you like your own words better.  I cannot worry about your predilections.  


 
___