[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:13 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> 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).

Hi Marsha
Are you saying these patterns exist in and of themselves? If so, then
I disagree. I think they are provisional... they work until something
better comes along. Seeing static patterns of quality as ever-changing
and impermanent seems to go against Robert Pirsig's notion that it is
best to find a balance between Dynamic Quality and static quality. If
static patterns are always changing, how could we hope to form static
latches? Wouldn't any evolutionary advance necessarily fall back?

>Marsha:
> 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.

Dan:
Why not simply say intellectual patterns are ideas. It is a good idea
to state inorganic patterns of quality come first. It is a better idea
to say that Quality comes first.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com