[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[MarshaV]

Hi Dan,

On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

Not al all, I am not saying that patterns exist in and of themselves.  I was suggesting that all patterns (inorganic, biological, social & intellectual) have an interdependent relationship with the process of conceptualization.


> 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?

A river is ever-changing, but changes within a stable pattern.  Skin is ever-changing, but changes within a stable pattern.  Static patterns of value pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.  


>> 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.

Because static quality represents all that can be conceptualized and conceptualization includes thoughts and ideas.  Static patterns of value from all the levels are conceptually constructed.  It is a better idea to say that Quality comes first, but would Quality exist without the relationship with the conceptualization process?  


> Thank you,
> 
> Dan



Marsha