[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[MarshaV]

Greetings Dan,


On Mar 12, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:32 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>>>>>> 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.
>> Dan:
>>> I think (in the context of the MOQ) there is only pure experience, not
>>> pure reflection.
>> Marsha:
>> Static experience is pure projected, or regurgitated, experience.
> 
> Dan:
> Since the MOQ sees experience and Dynamic Quality as synonymous, I
> don't believe there is static experience, per se. These little bites
> we take of experience might be called static quality patterns but they
> are not experience no more than they are Dynamic Quality. At least
> that's how I see things now...

Marsha:
Can you provide the quote where RMP states that experience and Dynamic Quality are synonymous.  I'd like to read it in some kind of context.  -  I believe the experience of humans is statically patterned most of the time.



>> Dan:
>>> Intellect does not grow out of perception... it grows
>>> out of social patterns of quality.
>> Marsha:
>> 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.
> 
> Dan:
> They share an evolutionary history. Otherwise they are not alike... at
> least that's the impression I get from LILA.

Marsha:
To repeat: I am not considering their evolutionary history.  To repeat:  

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.  A second would be by categorization by evolutionary function the patterns  - inorganic, biological, social and intellectual – into their four-level, hierarchical structure. 

I am considering how all patterns are alike.  For one, static patterns are all alike in that they are stuff that can be conceptualized.  


>> Dan:
>>> Intellectual reflection is never
>>> pure. It is always tainted by language and culture.
>> Marsha:
>> And inorganic, biological & social patterns are not pure either.  All patterns are projections.  All patterns are overlaid onto DQ.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> That seems right.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> 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.
> 
> Dan:
> And I applaud your efforts.
> 
>> 
>> Dan:
>>> 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.
> 
> Dan:
> 
> If you are labeling consciousness as static quality, aren't concepts
> and percepts also static quality patterns? I should think it all
> depends on how 'consciousness' is defined.

Marsha:
I have not labelled consciousness as static quality.  At this point I have suggested a conditionally co-dependent relationship.  


> If it is seen as synonymous
> with experience, then it is also synonymous with Dynamic Quality. How
> do you define it?

Marsha:
I will not discuss both DQ and sq together.  They represent different points-of-view that can only make a mess when combined in a discussion.  Dynamic Quality is undividable, undefinable and unknowable, though it can be experienced.  

So you would pass the "loaded question" back to me?  Well, I have no complete definition, but at the very least I might suggest it is the flow of concepts and percepts (or bits and pieces of static patterns) which I may or may not be aware of.  To remind you, I am not suggesting synonymous, but interdependence.  And I am not prepared to deal any more extensively with your "loaded question".  



>>>>> 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.
>> Marsha:
>> No.
> Okay... so how do you describe social patterns of quality?

Marsha:
I have no interest in discussing individual levels.  How all patterns are alike is the more interesting question.  If that can be established, then how patterns within the individual levels function might become clearer.  


>> Dan:
>>> 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.
> 
> Dan:
> In the MOQ the upper two levels correspond to the subjective, the
> lower two correspond to objective. A concept is an idea (at least
> according to dictionary.com)... a mental construct, a notion. It is
> subjective. You cannot see an idea no matter how powerful a microscope
> you use. So to say that conceptualization isn't an intellectual
> process seems to destroy the framework of the MOQ.

Marsha:
Yes, this is one way that RMP presented it, but I believe this was to relate the four levels back to a subject-object orientation.  When RMP states something about static quality, do you think it might be applied, at least in most cases, to all static patterns of value?  When it is stated that static quality represents anything that can be conceptualized, do you suppose it is meant to apply to all patterns or only for the patterns in the Intellectual Level?  



>>> 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).
> 
> Dan:
> Well, yes... though to be precise I should think it's better to say
> that intellectual static quality is conceptualization. It is
> conditioned by thought. I'd have to go and read the passage your quote
> is lifted from in order to see the context in which Ant is working
> here.

I disagree.  I believe all patterns in all levels have an interdependent relationship with consciousness (concepts & percepts), and the patterns in the Intellectual Level represent a particularly sophisticated type of concept.


>> Dan:
>>> 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.
> 
> Dan:
> You are deliberately confusing my words... I didn't say LILA is an
> outline and you know it. If you want to play games, so be it.

No, I'm suggesting LILA is not so easily interpreted as a outline 'might' be.  What you consider LILA to be presenting might be seen differently from different perspectives.  


>>>> 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.
>> Marsha:
>> "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)
> 
> Dan:
> Ah, the SODV... I wouldn't rely on this quote. I believe Robert Pirsig
> has stated after the fact that this paper was written in an effort to
> reach those who haven't read his work, and therefore is suspect.
> Again, he does not use the words 'quality event' in LILA even once.

I can find no reason to ignore this statement.  All of LILA was presenting the MoQ for the first time to readers who were unfamiliar with such a metaphysics.  

To bring it back, I am interested in what can be said of ALL patterns.  I am not interested, at this time, in what divides them into separate discrete levels. 


> Thank you,
> 
> Dan


Thank you.


Marsha