[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[X Acto]

Mark,
DQ, as a useful concept, reduces to the Good. now the Good is one of those concepts that is
difficult to pin down simply because there are differing competetive forms of Good.
Some would say the Good is the now of experience which cant be entirely covered by words
or that it is reality free of distinction but having said that , thats is not the reality that can be
experienced because experience is composed of distinction it is composed of the Good,
"every last bit".
All depends on what you think is useful as a concept of "following DQ" a pursuit of a valueless state
of being or the pursuit of the Good.
 
-Ron
 
From: 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org 
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Why are things called patterns?

Hmmm...
"discrete things" as opposed to "patterns".  Now this is a new twist.
So patterns are not discrete.  Pray tell, I am totally confused with
this argument.  Perhaps patterns are unpatterned and not discrete.  I
have a hard time following Marsha's awareness throughout this whole
thing.  It can turn on a dime.  I suppose that is what happens to
someone who is controlled by the ever-changing patterns over which
they have no control.  Blame it on the patterns!  This way one does
not have to take any responsibility, or be part of the moral fabric of
the universe.

Marsha has "nothing to say" about DQ, and then follows that up with "a
lot to say."  This is puzzling as well.  Why not say "I have an
opinion which I am going to say"?  DQ is an acronym that we manipulate
intellectually, it is not something sacred that should never be said
like the name of God.  That is spirituality which is by definition
outside the realm of the intellect and static.  There is nothing
static about ones relationship with the cosmos.

Break that spell once and for all.  If necessary, kill all
intellectual patterns and start again.  Zen mind is beginner's  mind.
Give it a try.  Drop the baggage, it will do you no good where you are
going.  Lighten the load!

Now Marsha is requesting a definition of the conceptualization process
itself.  Why would that be?  Perhaps it is to reduce it to another
pattern of hers.

So DQ is not change.  How can something which is no thing "not" be a
thing.  Again the logic seems a bit contrived here, and does not seem
to reveal anything.  Yes, the number 2 is not the number 1.  Is this
the same logic that makes DQ "not" change?  How can one qualify that
which exists outside of qualification?

This can be done in the conceptual world, of course, if we make such
representational dot-connecting clearly distinct from the dots
themselves.  So within the conceptual world (not to be confused with
DQ), what "is" DQ?  Perhaps we can only present it though omission,
but why would that be?  It is not one of the names of God.  Within the
conceptual world, it IS something because we have created it.  Can we
honestly say that we have created an acronym of nothing?  This seems
highly against a book such as Lila ever have being written.  We create
these things and then share them.  If one does not want to discuss DQ,
then do not introduce the acronym, please.  Me?  I like to discuss it,
so there!

Patterns are shadows cast by the moon.  As such they are neither the
moon, nor the light coming from such.  When we "point at the moon", we
are not really pointing at the moon, for this does not exist in the DQ
vernacular.  We are observing the shadows and extrapolating enough to
continue on our journey.  We create this journey with every step, and
follow some sign posts depending on our persuasion. The journey is
always our own,not matter how we feel we are connected to our
brethren. Thank god for words so we can learn things so as to impart
some more color to our awareness.  The color itself is not the
awareness but simply a quality of its presentation within.

Sometimes it seems to me that Lila should not have been written since
it is going down that path that Pirsig urgently cautions against.
That is to stick to the words rather than the message.  But, we are
human after all, and we like to share things, and get caught up in the
static nature of words.  Some people take the megaphone approach and
revert to scripture, which is fine if it is seen for what it is.
Sharing does not encompass the "right" or the "wrong", it is simply a
method for creating some agreement.  The negativity that some posts
presents (guilty) "against" some one is truly a destructive shame.  I
was shocked by this when I first joined the forum, but quickly got
used to it with the likes of Krimmel (thanks Krimmel).  But sometimes
it seems that such denigration is all there is.

Double sigh (with cream),

Mark

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:07 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
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