[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:58 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Dan,
>>>
>>> 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.

Dan:
I feel a dis-ease with your use of 'pure' in relation to reflection...
I think (in the context of the MOQ) there is only pure experience, not
pure reflection. Intellect does not grow out of perception... it grows
out of social patterns of quality. Intellectual reflection is never
pure. It is always tainted by language and culture.

>
>
>>>> 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.

Dan:
I didn't think you were disrespecting the work of Robert Pirsig... I
was just reminding myself what we are doing here. It seems better to
explore the merits of the MOQ as outlined in LILA rather than to
introduce our own personal preferences into the equation. That's why I
tend to disagree with your assertion that all patterns are a
reflection, or fingers pointing at the moon. I do not believe that's a
proper way to interpret the MOQ.

>
>
>
>> 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.
>Marsha:
> 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.

Dan:
But aren't you describing social patterns of quality? I think so. So
isn't it better to consider static quality patterns from four points
of view rather than two?

Marsha:
 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.

Dan:
I tend to disagree with this. Again, you seem to be saying all
patterns are intellectual patterns. They are not, at least not the way
Robert Pirsig has outlined in LILA. I fail to see how your formulation
improves on the MOQ... rather, it seems confusing to me.

>Marsha"
> 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:
I don't think he uses 'event' at all in LILA... I know he uses it in
ZMM. If you have time perhaps you might look for the specific quote
you're talking about so we could chew on it.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com