[MD] emptiness

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Marsha,

I agree. I'd say Pirsig's patterns are descriptive abstractions of 
conventional-habitual experience.

I also think that conventional-habitual experience is the same as 
romantic quality.

But because Pirsig's patterns are an analogy of conventional-habitual 
experience, I think they do not include normative things such as formal 
logic and axiomatic mathematics. To be sure, such formal constructs may 
be derived from Pirsig's patterns, but once that has been done, they are 
inherently independent of experience.

In other words, I believe it's possible to construct a normative set of 
patterns which is an analogy of Pirsig's patterns, but not the same thing.

 1. The fundamental normative pattern is the /existence pattern/. It
    contains all existing entities, such as symbols and their basic
    relations.
 2.  From the existence pattern emerges the /increment pattern/. This
    pattern includes all existing structures that can have duplicates or
    iterations. It contains variables and coefficients.
 3.  From the increment pattern emerges the /interaction pattern/. That
    pattern includes all rules regarding what kind of increments are
    possible and what are not. It contains functions and topology.
 4.  From the interaction pattern emerges the /control pattern/, which
    contains rules on what can be stated of interactions and what can
    not be stated. It contains things like axiomatization and completeness.


-Tuukka



22.12.2011 13:29, MarshaV kirjoitti:
> Hi Mark,
>
> I see patterns, of which words and definitions are an aspect, to all be analogy for conventional-habitual experience.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:40 PM, 118<ununoctiums at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>> OK I see how you are using analogy.  I would use the word symbolism.  There, there was no complaint there, I must be improving my attitude.  Thanks for pointing it out.
>>
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>>
>> On Dec 20, 2011, at 11:05 PM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:19 AM, 118<ununoctiums at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>> I am not griping, I am just talking.  Settle down, I am not out to get
>>>> you.  My only point was that non-duality is a word which we give the
>>>> idea that there is no "other".
>>> And I don't think you're out to get me, you just tend towards complaint.
>>>
>>>
>>>> An analogy is when we represent something with a similar thing.
>>>> Something that is hard to describe is presented as something that is
>>>> similar.
>>>
>>> I used 'nonduality' as similar to a type of experience.  But explanation, too, with its use of signs and symbols (words) is the use of analogies all the way down.
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 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
>