[MD] patterns of interaction

[118]

Hi Ian,

Yes, I have stuck with him as far as I can take him.  He gets stuck in
a cage of his own making and then shows how one can get out of it.  I
prefer not to make the cage to begin with.

Do you need a key?

Cheers,
Mark

On 1/31/12, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> 118, you said
> "It seems that Wittgenstein likes to present metaphysics as some kind
> of Math equation."
>
> His Tractatus and early work sure reads that way, but that was a
> deliberate and extreme exploration (a huge practical joke at the
> expense of Russell et al IMHO) demonstrating the absurdity of such a
> purely mathematical-logic view.
>
> It's clear from his later work, that his own real world view was the
> experience of language and the language of experience. (Real language,
> like real experience, is full of recursion.) Stick with him, kid.
>
> Ian
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:24 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Marsha,
>> I am glad you liked it.  Personally I do not care much for
>> Wittgenstein and his deconstructionist methods.  However, he does
>> support your idea of separating everything into patterns, as
>> illuminating.  Of course this is what I do all the time in science,
>> where much is explained in terms of process.  Welcome to my world!
>>
>> It seems that Wittgenstein likes to present metaphysics as some kind
>> of Math equation.  Being immersed in scientific understanding, I do
>> not think this may be the right format for MoQ for the analytical can
>> only bring one inside and perhaps perspective is lost in the meantime.
>>
>> The patterns approach divides things up.  After doing so, it is
>> important to integrate it back together, otherwise it would seem that
>> you simply end up with a lot of parts (or patterns I guess).  I am
>> sure you are moving towards that, and I respect your view if often I
>> do not understand it.
>>
>> In my opinon, I do not believe that Pirsig is necessarily fond of this
>> approach since he does not care much for scientific inquiry as a great
>> revealer, but maybe you are correct and I misread Pirsig on this.
>> Perhaps others have a comment on this.
>>
>> It could be correct that Wittgenstein does speak directly to MoQ, and
>> there is a need to deconstruct in order to better understand, I am
>> easy.  By the way, was this from his Tractatus or post-Tractatus
>> period.  It makes a difference since he changed his view on some
>> fundamental grounds.  I also believe that Wittgenstein claimed that
>> all philosophy is somewhat silly, since it is playing around with
>> words.   But, maybe  that is an urban legend.
>>
>> Perhaps you could explain how Wittgenstein views are related to MoQ.
>>
>> I am just trying to stay on track in terms of discussing MoQ.  You
>> certainly support Tuukka's recursive approach, so you may be going in
>> the right direction.  I am adventurous, so carry on.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>> On 1/30/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> In mental process, the effects of differences are to be regarded as
>>> transforms of the difference which preceded them... [D]ifferences... and
>>> their trains of effects in promoting other differences become material of
>>> information, redundancy, pattern, and so on. — Bateson, Mind and Nature
>>>
>>> "How then can there be causality without agents? And, more specifically,
>>> how
>>> is it that our sense-faculties came to be receptive to the particular
>>> types
>>> of stimuli that impinge upon them, which together give rise to our world
>>> of
>>> experience? Our capacities for such awareness of distinctions did not
>>> arise
>>> uncaused, nor are they without their own consequences. They developed in
>>> dependence upon previous kinds of experience and in turn condition the
>>> kinds
>>> of experience, the kinds of cognitive awareness, that may arise in the
>>> future. The momentary arising of the discernment of differences is thus
>>> part
>>> of a larger feedback cycle in which "the effects of differences are to be
>>> regarded as transforms of the difference which preceded them." These two
>>> notions—circular causality, in the form of recursive feedback processes,
>>> and
>>> epigenesis, wherein the results of previous events serve as the basis for
>>> succeeding ones—comprise another area where Buddhist philosophy has much
>>> in
>>> common with scientific models of causality, particularly those of
>>> cognitive
>>> science and evolutionary biology. In both perspectives, these models turn
>>> our attention away from independent acts of isolated entities and toward
>>> particular patterns of interaction that give rise both to immediate forms
>>> of
>>> cognitive awareness and, in the long run, to the living forms we all
>>> embody.
>>> That is, this circular causality operates at both micro and macro
>>> levels."
>>>
>>>
>>>       (http://www.gampoabbey.org/documents/Buddhist-Steps.pdf)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha:
>>> This is a really great paper addressing cognitive experience.  I will not
>>> post another quote, but I sincerely hope you read it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> 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
> 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
>