[MD] Energy, Pattern and Value

[Jan-Anders]

Hi again Tim, and Matt. (You're apologized, please be patient.)

There's one thing if you have beer or not, another what brand it is and 
just a third about your thirst and your taste for it. The quality of the 
beer is dependent on all three but they are all independent from each 
other. *The main quality trick is to balance all three; enough beer, 
right sort of beer and beer at your service.* Energy (mass), Pattern 
(objective), Value (subjective).

To take a ride on a motorcycle you must A) have access to a bike B) It 
should be a domestic brand C) You must be able to ride it.

A is a hermeneutical, B is analytical and C is a pragmatic matter. 
They're all valid and crucial but still independent. A competent 
philosopher can use all three without losing orientation.

When I use the word objective as opposed to subjective it is an 
analytical concept. We look at something and try to find it's true 
unbiased pattern, like a mathematic concept, e. g. green as light with a 
wavelength of 635 nanometer.

Subjective green is quality related to a subject and as such different 
for anyone and therefore not objective.

Light as energy can have just any wavelength, energy can be represented 
in many ways, it is still an amount of energy (mass).

The main objective (as goal) is to determine what's Real and not, What 
it is and the Use of it for any other subject.

Pictures and icons are merely pattern, just a tiny little amount of mass 
in them, just a few particles of color stuff on paper. The meaning or 
value of a picture is different to anybody. Let's think about a picture 
of an iPhone in an ad. I'm sure you've seen it many times already.

Is it true that there are iPhones in the reality or not? Those who not 
have an iPhone want to know and maybe buy one just get assured that the 
picture isn't lying. I went into an apple store just to hold an iPad 
because i've seen so many pictures of it already. That is something 
about how we react in the question af true and absolute existence or not.

Now take another picture, the picture of the first iMac. I'm sure you 
know which, the round little green thing that popped up in films and 
tv-shows for children. I refused to buy one as I thought it was so ugly. 
I really didn't like that design at all.
  But I have got one now with the flower-power cover, filled up with all 
my mp3-files and working as my music central, got it for free from a 
university. See? The Value rose when I found a use for it that was more 
important than the design of it.

You can make an experiment with another picture; take a picture from a 
newspaper that really annoys you, violence, a politician of some sort or 
an accident. Put it beside the picture of a commercial ad for something 
that doesn't appeal at all. Do you see the difference between pattern 
and value? Try to switch subject and see the commercial as the accident, 
and the accident as something someone is trying to sell.

What you see might be justified, but it might not be true.

Next turn them upside down. What's happening when you can't see?


got the picture?

Jan-Anders