[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[118]

Hi Dan,

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 1:17 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.

Yes, indeed we do produce ideas of high quality, and you are correct
that such "patterns" are our representational objectification of
experience.  Therefore, one should view the concept of patterns within
this MoQ paradigm.  Things do not exist as patterns, until we create
them.  This is the basis behind the "ghost" analogy that Pirsig uses
in ZAMM.
>
> 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.

Iron filing so indeed exhibit a "preference".  I dealt with this in
more detail in my response to David.  So we are on the same page.  To
imbue Quality with the same feeling as Morality, brings meaning to us.
 Our intellectual creation of such "patterns" is a preference, as you
say, and preferences change.  The value which makes up our reality is
based on such preferences which is where ideas come from.

In the effort to impart my own understanding of the quote you present
(to supplement yours), the "impossible" is one way of saying that no
such moral fabric can be envisioned.  Well, we do here, so it is not
impossible.

I do not think the Victorian paradigm is adequate to explain this,
since it is part of the effort towards a better paradigm, and cannot
be relegated to inconsequential or wrong.  In years to come, our
current efforts will also be seen as "Victorian", for that is how
betterness works.  Our conception of "moral order" is temporary and
conditional.  It is clear from the difficulty that some have with this
concept that it is insufficient at best.  It is important to not
consider this "moral order" as the final word, but simply as a step
along the path.  If not, we get stuck in static truths, which is what
MoQ seeks to deny.

Thank you for the clarification.

Cheers,
Mark
>
> 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