[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[118]

Hi Craig and David,
On 3/12/12, craigerb at comcast.net <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:
> [Craig]
>> Inorganic patterns (iron filings) recognize other inorganic
>> patterns (magnets); biological patterns (predators) recognize the patterns
>> of their prey.
>
> [David]
>> How do you know that?
>[Craig]
> A hawk circles overhead, then swoops down on a mouse. How does it
> distinguish the mouse from
> everything else around?  By patterns. You reject a lot of good science by
> holding a bad metaphysics.
>
> [David]
>> It is only, our unique human minds which can recognise
>> these patterns.  This is in line with Pirsig's quote that it is ideas
>> which create
>> what we know as inorganic patterns.
>[Craig]
> "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce
> what we know as matter." - Lila's Child.
>
> Yes, our knowledge depends on concepts--intellectual patterns.  But a hawk &
> a mouse are
> biological patterns.
> Intellectual patterns come from social patterns, which come from biological
> patterns, usw.

Mark:  There is no reason to relegate patterns only to the human
intellect.  This would not be in keeping with experience.  Who knows
what concepts a Hawk has, but it most certainly does.  The universe is
a moral fabric, and this does not just mean human morality, but the
morality in all, even a hawk.  Not only humans strive for the "good",
but this is a tendency of reality.  Pirsig states that everything has
free will, everything.  Free will is not just a human thing.  The MoQ
is expansive and not supposed to be an anthropocentric religion that
places man as the keeper of all.  In fact Pirsig claims that man
doesn't even know how "to keep", the way our culture is going these
days (see last 2 chapters of ZAMM).
>
> [Dan]
>> Predators do not recognize patterns of prey... they exhibit preferences.
>
> How does the hawk prefer a mouse to a piece of wood?  By recognizing the
> mouse pattern.
> You reject a lot of good science by holding a bad metaphysics.

If I use the pattern paradigm, I can say that everything that
interacts, interacts based on patterns.  And these are not just human
ones.  A photon interacts with a leaf based on pattern recognition of
the photon for that specific chemical bond that chlorophyl has, to
sustain life.  The photon does not interact constructively with other
patterns.  Science is all about defining patterns and then studying
them.  If they are agreed on, then it is said that they are good.  It
also says that such patterns exist outside of the human mind.  These
scientific patterns are always being upgraded through experience.

Each pattern is inherent in existence, and arises from other patterns.
 Each pattern is unique in its existence and equally important as
other patterns.  The patterns before and after have equal measure to
inherent existence.  From a plant comes a brand new flower.  Now that
is existence!  Patterns result from the patterns before, and the
patterns before result from the patterns of now.  Just look at history
books for proof.  We define what happened before.  We define it in the
present.  Some people have good memories, others have bad.  Each one
of us can define our past better than we can define the future.  There
is no reason to think linearly about time, since it can work both
ways.  The moment in which we live is timeless (outside of time).
Therefore it does not have a tendency to go one way or the other.
Besides, there are many other kinds of time besides past present and
future, many.  Why stick only to those?

Namaste,
Mark

>
> 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
>