[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi All,
I thought Dave pulled out some good quotes earlier ... but first ...

When Marsha says "nothing other than" when relating DQ to SQ and
vice-versa she seems to me to be simply reinforcing the monism. The
split is conventional, important, useful, pragmatic, empirical -
radically so even - but they are nevertheless fundamentally the same
"stuff" - quality. They do not comprise different stuff.

It's also one reason why "pattern" is a good word - the right (and not
entirely original) word - different patterns in the same stuff, not
different stuff. I also like the fact that pattern is unspecific /
non-exclusive when it comes to its potential temporal as well as
spatial dimensions - hence Marsha - often also won't let us forget the
"ever changing" aspect either.

Here was Dave's selection:
"But although the four systems [ of static patterns] are exhaustive
they are not exclusive. They all operate at the same time and in ways
that are almost independent of each other. This classification of
patterns is not very original, but the Metaphysics of Quality allows
an assertion about them that is unusual. It says they are not
continuous. They are discreet. They have very little to do with one
another. Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not
an extension of that lower level. Quite the contrary ..."

I think the "not" exclusive and "almost" independent are important
qualifiers. The patterns are discrete, without simple one-way causal
dependency - each has a life if its own - but they do comprise the
same indefinable quality stuff.

Regards
Ian

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:11 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
>
>> "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided into four systems:
>> inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns and intellectual patterns. They are
>> exhaustive. That’s all there are. If you construct an encyclopaedia of four topics—Inorganic,
>> Biological, Social and Intellectual—nothing is left out. No “thing,” that is. Only Dynamic
>> Quality, which cannot be described in any encyclopaedia, is absent."
>> (Lila)
>>
>> Is there anything in the above that you disagree with?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Horse
>
> No Horse, nothing I disagree with.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> 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