[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[MarshaV]

On Mar 11, 2012, at 1:18 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 8:33 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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).
>>> 
>>> Dan:
>>> Are you saying these patterns exist in and of themselves?
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Not at 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.
> 
> Dan:
> Why isn't this a case of mistaking the finger for the moon at which it
> is pointing?

Marsha:
Why would it be mistaking the finger for the moon?  Can patterns ever represent more than pointing?  I'd answer no.    
 
 
>> Dan:
>>> 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:
>> 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.
> 
> Dan:
> So the patterns are not 'ever-changing' so much as changing within the
> context of stability... or static patterns responding to Dynamic
> Quality...

Marsha:
No, they are ever-changing, but change within a stable, predictable pattern.  Certainly within the relationship with consciousness (the flow thoughts), patterns come into existence, transform and pass away in a moment, and a pattern is never exactly the same as it was even a moment before.  Additionally, patterns would be different for each individual dependent on their static pattern history.
 

>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> 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?
> 
> Dan:
> The four levels represent an encyclopedia of reality... a way of
> ordering. They represent more than intellectual patterns of quality.
> Here, you seem to be saying intellectual quality is all there is, but
> this goes against the MOQ.

Marsha:
I am not saying all patterns are just concepts.  I am saying that all patterns, including inorganic, bioligical and social patterns, have a relationship with the conceptualization process.  Additionally, I am saying that all patterns can be categorized, or ordered, into the four-level, hierarchical, evolutionary structure.  I agree that all patterns may be thought to represent an encyclopedia of reality.


> Thank you,
> 
> Dan

Marsha