[Krimel]
Lots of terms in the MoQ lexicon have been hashed and rehashed but I don't
know that there has been much discussion of the term Patterns. Perhaps
because the meaning seems somehow self evident. But it is a critical term.
Some have suggested that one of the defining qualities of animals in general
and humans in particular is pattern recognition. We know for example that
certain kinds of pattern recognition are hardwired into our visual sensory
system.
David uses the Russian doll example but I think I would prefer to stick with
the net, web metaphor. Patterns tend not to be discrete. They are more or
less fuzzy sets without clearly defined borders. Our perception of patterns
forms over time and there must be a temporal component to a pattern. It is
an arrangement of relationship that persists for some duration.
We like to categorized patterns so using Matt's example of atom, it not just
a question of expression. It is also a matter of association. The pattern of
"atom" has a network of associations that form around it. This may include
everything from relatively fixed and common associations with say nuclear
energy or obscure associations like Atom sounds a bit like atman or Adam.
Viewed in this way the more common an association is the strong the
connections between related ideas. The structure of this is very organic.
Treelike if you will, self similar across scale.
[Matt]
I think you're making a mistake (if this is what you're saying) in
arranging these patterns by how many ways they can be expressed. I "express"
an atom when I write the word atom, I "express" an atom when I say the word.
There are an infinite number of ways anything can be expressed, depending on
how society/people express them. I could say atom in French and it would
still express the same thing as in English, etc. Just because English can be
expressed an infinite number of ways doesn't mean atoms can't.
On the other hand, if you're arranging patterns on how many
patterns/things they use (not express), the question is raised: "Does
English require atoms to be expressed?" I think the answer is yes, although,
I'll try flipping the question: "Do atoms require English to be expressed?"
No, atoms do not require English to be expressed.
Is this what you're aiming at?
> [David M]
> I think this is key, patterns have levels like
> Russian dolls, so that most complex patterns
> have an aspect on more than one level and
> have to be built up from the lowest level,
> although some don't reach up that high,
> so atoms don't use English, but English
> can be expressed in many ways: vibrating
> atoms, atoms marked on paper, atoms
> in human form, etc. But, I'd suggest, we
> can see where in the Russian doll grid
> a certain patterns manifest, there are
> levels to be understood, non-reductively
> to make sense of how the patterns inter-relate.
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
