[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:07 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.

Dan:
I understand all intellectual patterns to be reflections.

>
>
>> 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)?

Dan:
Wow... talk about a loaded question... has anyone? I assume we are
using the MOQ here as a guideline for discussions, at least we should
be using it... I know a good number of contributors here seem to feel
they're too intelligent to bother reading Robert Pirsig's work.
However, I do not count you among them.


Marsha:
 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 we think about them, yes. I rarely think about biological level
functions such as my heart beating, my eyes blinking, my breathing,
and so I don't see how they are a part of the conceptualization
process, unless of course I do think about them. Hence, not all
patterns can be seen as having a relationship with conceptualization
all the time.

>
>
>>>>> 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.

Dan:
We both agree and disagree... I think the MOQ would say we define
Dynamic Quality all the time... it's just that 'it' is inexhaustible.
The definition never ends. We cannot nail it down and say: There!
That's Dynamic Quality! 'It' is not this, not that. Change might be
seen as a response to Dynamic Quality, not Dynamic Quality.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com