[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[MarshaV]

Hello Dan,

On Mar 11, 2012, at 9:43 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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:
Here's the difference,,, because I understand all patterns (inorganic, biological, social and intellectual) to be reflections in the sense that they are projections, patterns (conventional habits), overlaid upon DQ.  None are ultimately real.  The rock that I hold in my hand, which may Include percepts and concepts, is still pattern overlaid upon the undifferentiated, indeterminate (DQ).  Though some patterns project a perceptual aspect (touch, sight, smell, sound, taste),  the are still pure reflection; not ultimately real.


>>> 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 was trying to make a point, not disrespect RMP's work.  BUT, I believe he also said to find out for yourself and not just accept his words.  Consciousness, as best one can describe the awareness/relationship is always a part of the experience.  While the MoQ is a theory, an intellectual pattern, it is still suppose to be representing Reality.  ---  While Reality may always be outside our complete understanding, a lot can be learned by discovering what Reality is not.  



> 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.

Recognition is conceptualization of some category.  Recognizing 'That is a dog.' involves some relationship with the conceptualization process that doesn't rise to the sophistication of what RMP has described as Intellectual patterns: science, mathematics, philosophy - a sophisticated conceptualization that started with the early Greeks.  A four-year old child can recognize a dog as being in the category called 'dog'.   Humans tens of thousands of years ago could recognize a dog as being in the category called 'dog'.  Humans well before the evolution of an Intellectual Level recognize a dog as being in the category called 'dog'.  So 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_. And SECOND would be by categorization by evolutionary function the patterns  - inorganic, biological, social and intellectual – into their four-level, hierarchical structure. 

I am not saying a pattern is merely an idea.  I am saying that ALL patterns have a relationship with the conceptualization process.  Somewhere RMP says that static quality is process/events.  Conditionally co-dependent processes.   



>>>>>> 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.

Yes, change might best be seen as a response to Dynamic Quality, not Dynamic Quality.   I agree.  Besides, I understand Dynamic Quality to be the basis of static quality, so that makes sense.  



> Thank you,
> 
> Dan



Marsha