[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[MarshaV]

Hello Dan,

On Mar 11, 2012, at 4:01 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:12 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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?
> 
> Dan:
> It appears (to me) that you seem to be saying all patterns (the moon)
> are dependent on our idea of them (the finger pointing at the moon).
> But perhaps I read it wrongly.

Marsha:
I understand all patterns to be a reflection of the moon.  


> Marsha:
>> Can patterns ever represent more than pointing?  I'd answer no.
> 
> Dan:
> I would agree if we were talking about intellectual patterns to the
> exclusion of all else. But according to the MOQ biological patterns
> have very little to do with intellectual patterns other than sharing
> an evolutionary history. Remember the part in LILA about these cells
> being billions of years old?

Marsha:
But I am not talking about only intellectual patterns when I state that ALL patterns have a relationship with the conceptualization process.  I understand RMP to have said that the levels are discrete, not patterns.  Has RMP specifically explained the conceptualization process (consciousness)?   I agree that the more sophisticated manipulation of abstract concepts "with no corresponding particular experience" are a function of the Intellectual Level, but all patterns have a relationship with the conceptualization process. Imho.


>>>> 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.
> 
> Dan:
> So, ever-changing patterns change within predictable patterns. Where
> does Dynamic Quality fit into this scheme? Or does it?

Marsha:
I have nothing to say about DQ.  Though DQ can be experienced, it is undivideable, undefinable and unknowable.  You, yourself, have often mentioned it is best approached by stating what it is not:  It is not change.   


>>>>>> 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.
> 
> Dan:
> Thank you for the clarification. I think we are in agreement here.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Dan

Thank you.


Marsha