[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[MarshaV]

Hello Dan,

I think it best to consider static patterns of value from two different points-of-view. The first would be the nature of all patterns:  conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized.  The process of conceptualization would pertain to all patterns (ideas/language).

The second point-of-view would be categorization by evolutionary function into their four-level, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.  Then intellectual static patterns of value are a particular category of pattern that began to emerge with the ancient Greeks and functions in a particular manner:  mathematics, philosophy, science, etc.  


Marsha



  




On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:39 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 1:17 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrot
>> Hi Craig,
>> 
>> How do you know that? It is known through experience yes, but what you are communicating to me now are ideas, not experience. It is only, our unique human minds which can recognise these patterns.  This is in line with Pirsig's quote that it is ideas which create what we know as inorganic patterns.
>> 
>> "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce what we know as matter." - Lila's Child.
> 
> Dan:
> Yes, David... this seems right. Robert Pirsig is reiterating here what
> he says in LILA concerning the foundations of his metaphysics:
> 
> "Because Quality is morality. Make no mistake about it. They're
> identical. And if Quality is the primary reality of the world then
> that means morality is also the primary reality of the world. The
> world is primarily a moral order. But it's a moral order that neither
> Rigel nor the posing Victorians had ever, in their wildest dreams,
> thought about or heard about.
> 
> "The idea that the world is composed of nothing but moral value sounds
> impossible at first. Only objects are supposed to be real. "Quality"
> is supposed to be just a vague fringe word that tells what we think
> about objects. The whole idea that Quality can create objects seems
> very wrong. But we see subjects and objects as reality for the same
> reason we see the world right-side up although the lenses of our eyes
> actually present it to our brains upside down. We get so used to
> certain patterns of interpretation we forget the patterns are there."
> [LILA, chapter 8]
> 
> Dan comments:
> I think the key words here are 'patterns of interpretation' which
> would seem to correspond to ideas... the idea that objects are real is
> a high quality idea. But when we interpret reality in that way, we
> forget that we are working with an idea... not with reality itself. We
> are using lens like the ones in our eyes that we forget about.
> 
> Iron filings do not 'recognize' magnets... iron filings exhibit a
> preference. We (as human beings) create intellectual patterns (ideas)
> to recognize those preferences. Predators do not recognize patterns of
> prey... they exhibit preferences. We create intellectual patterns
> (ideas) to recognize those preferences. Ideas produce patterns to the
> value that makes up reality.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Dan
> 
> http://www.danglover.com
> 
> 
>> -David.
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 4:55 PM, craigerb at comcast.net wrote:
>> 
>>> [David]
>>>> The reason we call them this is because they are only ever recognised as patterns *because*
>>>> of our intellect. They only exist *because* of our intellect.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't think this is Pirsig's view. Inorganic patterns (iron filings) recognize other inorganic
>>> patterns (magnets); biological patterns (predators) recognize the patterns of their prey.
>>> Craig
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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