[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[MarshaV]

On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:48 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Craig,
> 
>> [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?
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> We can go around in circles if you like Craig. I can easily come back and say how do you 'know' that a hawk does that? Any idea you ever try and communicate with me is going to be just that. An idea.  Ideas come before hawks and mice.
> 
>> 
>> [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.
>> 
>> "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.  
> 
> Yes, and that is a good *idea* which you hold.  I'll restate the order of events... Quality first. Ideas second. Matter third.  It's a good idea that evolutionarily matter came first. But it is just that an idea. The reason why we use that idea and why it has been so successful is because the quality of that idea is before the idea itself.
> 
>> 
>> [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.
> 
> Once again, this is a good idea. It still does not contradict my original statement that patterns have a fundamental intellectual component....
> 
> "The reason we call them this is because they are only ever recognised as patterns *because* of our intellect.  They only exist *because* of our intellect."
> 
> The Metaphysics of Quality with all of it's levels and distinctions is an intellectual creation.
> 
>> 
>> [Marsha]
>>> 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).
>>> The second point-of-view would be categorization by evolutionary function into their four-level,
>>> hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.  
>> 
>> Marsha,
>> Yes, thank you, this is on the right track.
>> Craig
> 
> I disagree. It ignores how the mind works.  We see things as patterns which are static and do not change without some other un-named thing.
> 
> -David.


Hi David,

What do you mean how the mind works?  That there is a cognative relationship between static patterns and mind seems obvious.  That cognitive process is ever-changing seems obvious.  Seems to me a constant interdependent feedback system that rolls back into pattern.  But how do think the mind works?  


Marsha.