[MD] SQ patterns vs concepts

[MarshaV]

Magnus,

What I did was present my view and ask for your feedback.
That was all.  Here is my statement:  


      The fact that static patterns of value are all that is conceptualized, 
      does not mean that a pattern is a concept.  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?  

There was no accusation there, and nothing for me to defend.  


Marsha



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: 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!
> 
> Come on Marsha! Now you're inventing a new metaphysics again. 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?
> 
> 	Magnus
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___