Hi Jorge, >Steve writes (on Feb. 11): > >An easy quiz... >1.What sort of pattern is it when balls fall after >being dropped? >2.What sort of pattern is it when animals breathe in >and out? >3.What sort of pattern is it when new acquaintances >shake hands? >4.What sort of pattern is it when a cue ball strikes >another ball and >we conclude that the cue ball caused the other ball to >move? > >These patterns are all inferences that are easy to see >as patterns."
Jorge: > I wouldn't call this an easy quiz although, >admittedly, there are some more complicated, as the >ones proposed by Steve in the continuation of his >post. Let's try to tackle them: > > What sort of patterns are they? The question is a >bit awkward because 1. to 4. are not patterns. "balls >fall after being dropped" , "animals breathe in and >out" and "new acquaintances shake hands" are >statements. Statements are not patterns. Neither are >inferences patterns (as in Steve's "These patterns are >all inferences"). Steve: I'll try to explain what we mean by pattern in the MOQ sense of the term below... Jorge: >The pattern is a form, template, or model (or, more >abstractly, a set of rules) which can be used to make >or to generate things or parts of a thing, especially >if the things that are created have enough in common >for the underlying pattern to be inferred, in which >case the things are said to exhibit the pattern. Steve: This is not the sort of pattern Pirsig is talking about with "static patterns of value." Jorge: > As stressed by C. Alexander, the architect, >recurrence is a determining trait of Patterns >(Alexander ought to know because he wrote many books >on the subject; for a good reason, you won't find a >definition of patterns in any of his books). > > Recurrence, from verb recur in its senses of: "to >happen, come up or show up repeatedly". > > In this sense of recurrence, [&$#] is Not a >pattern; neither is this: [&$#&$#&$#]. It starts to >look like a pattern only when the number of >repetitions is (sufficiently) large, like in this for >instance: > > [&$#&$#&$#&$#&$#&$#&$#&$#&$#&$#&$#&$#&$#&$#&$#] >for here, the unit [&$#] keeps happening, showing up >or coming up "repeatedly". Steve: This is more like what we mean by pattern. It is a lot ike the mathematical idea of a pattern. Yet as Craig points out, even & is a pattern. Another term that may be valuable in understanding patterns of value is "value relationship." Jorge: > From this point of view a rock is not a pattern, a >thought is not a pattern, a pipe is not a pattern, a >value is not a pattern. Steve: Value is inferred by by patterns. A rock is a pattern of experience of coldness, hardness, shape, falling when dropped, hurting when dropped on your head, etc. Thoughts are patterns of ideas. >In my view, an important >distinction. Ron writes for instance (in an answer to >SA): > >"DOES NOT Pirsig state that subjects, objects, trees, >rocks, You, me, are all patterns of value?" > >For example, from Steve's statement >1. " balls fall after being dropped" we can make a >simple model made up of a ball, a releasing device and >a vector pointing downwards. Whenever we release the >ball, the ball follows the vector, over and over >again, till we get fed up of the game. Steve: This pattern of behavior is what I was talking about. It is an inorganic pattern. Breathing is a biological pattern Shaking hands is a social pattern of behavior Inferring cause and effect is an intellectual pattern Regards, Steve 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/
