[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[MarshaV]

On Mar 12, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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...

Hmmmm.  Okay.  I'll try again.

> I think (in the context of the MOQ) there is only pure experience, not
> pure reflection.

Static experience is pure projected, or regurgitated, experience.  

> Intellect does not grow out of perception... it grows
> out of social patterns of quality.

I did not mean to insinuate that intellectual patterns grow out of perceptions.  I was pointing to the fact that percepts and concepts may be a related aspect of patterned value.  Neither are more "real" than the other.  And I am not talking about the evolutionary movement of patterns.  I am considering how all patterns are alike.  



> Intellectual reflection is never
> pure. It is always tainted by language and culture.

And inorganic, biological & social patterns are not pure either.  All patterns are projections.  All patterns are overlaid onto DQ.


>>>>> 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.

Marsha:
I think there is much detail left out for further exploration.  And to repeat, RMP said to find out for yourself and not just accept his words.  The merits of the MoQ, as far as I am concerned, is as a map and requires actual movement.  


> 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:
Well, I do consider all patterns a projection of some sort.  Patterns are conventionally real, not ultimately real.  I am interested in the relationship between static patterns and consciousness (concepts and percepts).  There seems to be an interdependent relationship between 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.
>> 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.

No.


> So
> isn't it better to consider static quality patterns from four points
> of view rather than two?

Marsha:
As I said I am wanting to look at what can be said about all patterns: ALL static patterns are processes, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized.  At least that is how I understand it.  I disagree that conceptualization is confined to the intellectual level which RMP has stated as science, mathematics, philosophy - a sophisticated conceptualization that started with the early Greeks. 

> 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.

Marsha:
No, RMP has described the Intellectual Level as science, mathematics, philosophy - the sophisticated ideas that started with the early Greeks.  I am stating that conceptualization takes place with static quality in general.  "‘Static quality’ refers to anything that can be conceptualised and is a synonym for the conditioned in Buddhist philosophy." (MoQ Textbook).  

> 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:
"‘Static quality’ refers to anything that can be conceptualised and is a synonym for the conditioned in Buddhist philosophy." (MoQ Textbook).  

Many of RMP's idea may be confusing to academic philosophers, does that mean we should give up?  And I fail to see LILA as an outline.  I see it more as philosophical ideas presented within a novel.  If you want to rewrite it as an outline, be my guest.  I'll read it.  


>> 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.

"Quality is not a thing. It is an event. It is the event at which the subject becomes aware of the object. And because without objects there can be no subject, quality is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made possible. Quality is not just the result of a collision between subject and object. The very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of the Quality!". (SODV)


> Thank you,
> 
> Dan



Marsha