[MD] Static patterns are ever-changing?!? i

Thu Oct 3 14:27:06 PDT 2013

Adrie

-------------
discourse Arlo/dmb/dm, "Turner"(quoted)

As if he was writing directly to you, Turner states, "Related to this is
the debate about whether static patterns are “real” or “merely conceptual.”
Sound familiar? Turner continues, "Again, both positions are supported by
one of the two contexts so a “final answer” cannot be given.  Rather, one
must select the context which is of most value for the current purpose.  In
most cases, with respect to going about daily life, it is most valuable to
ASSUME [emphasis- Arlo], as per context (2), that static patterns, and the
things contained within them, are real (and follow the laws and rules
appropriate to the level in which they reside)."

------------------------------------------------------
model dependent realism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Pirsig was very correct to propose two models with overlapping fields. Mr
Turners document does not contain one single mistake,
nor is there a flaw in the models.But however it is true that the evolving
reality is at least partially to be awaited,ie,undefined in the future.
there are no models that are perfect or contain the full monty of 100%
realitymirroring.

I was following the debate very toughtfully.

to say the least , Dm has a philosophikal point that is worth investigating
, -pre-conceptual-,as if it should be interesting(it schould)!
to abstract pre-conceptual out of the generalisations it is sheltering in
for too long.Not as a widget to inject it in the models, but as a stand
alone proposal to investigate a philosophical missing link.It does not have
to be som, but subject /object reasoning is sometimes a better nuance to
speak about physikal entity's.

Please understand, Buchanan is correct that this does not belong in the
Moq,and imho , as a derivate it will fail to fit the proposed models.
it is not my opinion however that Mr turner intended to rule out -pre
conceptual-nor did Pirsig, Pirsig overruled it.

Adrie

2013/10/3 David Morey <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>

>
>
> [Arlo]
> Its frustrating, as I'm sure you know, to see this same mistake come up
> over and over.
>
> DM Well you need to stop having this delusion as you clearly have no idea
> what I am saying,  try going back and reading more carefully.
>
> Ontologically, pragmatically, assuming and acting AS IF patterns precede
> experience is a high-quality IDEA. But epistemologically we are aware that
> they DO NOT.
>
> DM Yes the realist idea is about what happens to patterns when we are not
> experiencing them,  thus is a postulated idea and a good one,  better than
> the witchcraft eh, but in experience prior to conceptualisation of patterns
> we have pre-conceptual patterns,  it is how babies recognise mothers and
> dogs food,  unless you think they are using concepts to recognise patterns?
>
> Instead DM just keeps beating the drums of objectivism/realism,
>
> DM My introduction to non-dualism 30 years ago was Heidegger,  I like
> Pirsig because he is so simple,  not much chance I am confused here,  you
> do not seem to understand how subject-object metaphysics can be rejected
> but realism retaindd as per Paul's 2nd perspective,  it is very simple
> stuff really,  you may need to broaden your reading in philosophy I suggest.
>
>
> as if replacing the word 'objects' with 'patterns' is all that's required,
> and somewhat funny accusations of 'witchcraft' for those who deny his
> oxymoronic term 'pre-conceptual patterns' (funny, to me, because I have a
> personal fondness for witchy women).
>
> DM well in philosophy we use definitions that distinguish what words mean,
>  I like Siouxsie Sioux too,  I met her when she was 14,  but there is no
> oxymoron in pre-conceptual patterns, experiencing shapes and colours,
>  identifying food is all stuff human experienced before language,  culture
> and concepts.came along.
>
> Anyway, that does it for me today.
>
> DM good because your contribution is not very helpful,  can you please
> stop suggesting I am saying things I am not,  read my stuff more carefully,
>  and can anyone here please tell me what the problem is with pre-conceptual
> patterns,  not a scientist on the planet would find that in any way odd or
> an oxymoron,  can't think of any philosophers really who would question it,
>  only MOQ seems to have lost such patterns somewhere between DQ and SQ,
> happy to place them in DQ,  so that DQ is full of pattern and potential
> pattern,  how else does conceptual SQ find anything in experience to
> concepts of something or about something,  sure you start naming these
> patterns you have concepts, but where are the patterned qualities or
> experiences you are using concepts about? You and DMB  cannot answer this,
>  I am expecting a back down any moment as usual,  if course pre-conceptual
> patterns are part of what we call DQ, DMB only ever had a real issue with
> keeping pre-conceptual qualities out of
>   SQ,  I can accept that,  but it changes some of the too pure comments
> about DQ,  the aesthetic continuum if full of difference isn't it, full of
> all our experiences of shapes,  sounds,  smells,  colours,  feels,  etc,
>  all with their felt values and all patterns,  this leaves SQ entirely as
> the realm of concepts and culture,  that seems good to me,  just because
> the castle DMB and friends have built has a few missing bricks in it there
> is no need to have a hissy fit,  the MOQ without preconceptual patterns in
> experience (not pre-experience strawman fool or phony) is flawed and
> incomplete,  get used to it, or prove to me I am wrong,  so far you guys
> have offered nothing.
> 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
>

-- 
parser