-------------------------------------------------- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:15 PM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 27, Issue 50
> Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Patterns (ian glendinning) > 2. Re: Patterns (Ron Kulp) > 3. Re: When is a pattern not static? (Ron Kulp) > 4. Re: Achtung MOQers! (Christoffer Ivarsson) > 5. Re: MOQ Levels (Steven Peterson) > 6. Re: Patterns (Ron Kulp) > 7. Re: Patterns (Arlo Bensinger) > 8. Re: Achtung MOQers! (MarshaV) > 9. Re: Patterns (Arlo Bensinger) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:21:14 -0600 > From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Glad you find it "funny" Arlo ;-) > Ian > > On 2/14/08, Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [Platt] >> But completely and sadly overlooked (or ignored) is the role of the >> significant individual who changes society >> >> [Arlo] >> This is actually funny. "Completely overlooked"??? If you could get >> your head out of your dichotomy for even a microsecond, .... > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:28:23 -0500 > From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > Platt; > > There's a grain of truth in Arlo's view of the individual vs. society -- > > maybe two grains. But completely and sadly overlooked (or ignored) is > the > role of the significant individual who changes society, whether he be > Washington, Lincoln, Reagan or the brujo. Without such singular movers > and > shakers societies would stagnate (as some have to this day) and we would > > still be nomadic wanderers dressed in buffalo skins and hunting with > spears. The essential role of the individual in the evolution towards > social betterness finds expression in Lila with Pirsig's story of the > brujo. In the following passage take special note of the fundamental > cause > of societal evolution: "A tribe can change its values only person by > person > and someone has to be first." Some PERSON that is, not an amorphous > intellectual abstraction such as "collective consciousness." > > > Ron: > Hello Platt, > I tink what Arlo was getting at was that society is a collection > of individuals. Individuals who speak the same language share similar > ideas follow similar rules each individual having the power to > influence the way the other individuals think and act. > Jumping to the conclusion that he'selling a collective hive > Mind is kinda over-reacting. Especially when its this area > In which focus needs to be placed in order to grasp a more > Potent understanding of what intellect means and how it may be > Used with more precision in our discussions. Society provides the > Frame and some of the pieces to develop our individual intellectual > selves. > Intellect does not reside in society, it resides in the individual > But society supplies those things necessary to develop it > Into individual intellectual awareness which are necessary > For an individual to function within it. > A society is ever a collection of individuals how the society > Values the individuals in every way mirrors how the individuals > Value society. Success is measured from this. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:34:50 -0500 > From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] When is a pattern not static? > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Ham: > But now I see that you've convinced Ron that patterns ARE dynamic! > > [Ron prev]: >> But to be exact, yes you are quite right as I understand it. >> So I guess we can answer the thread title by saying >> theoretically a pattern is never static. > > Ham: > The MoQ is a theory, is it not? Then, theoretically > speaking--logically--a > pattern must either be dynamic or static. Well, which is it to be, > gentlemen? > > > Ron: > It is both. Remember static is a relative term. > The term static is relative for it all is in dynamic flux. Static In > turn refers to perceptible phenomena in a dynamic flowing field. > That which is perceptible is a repeating pattern or a pattern of value > Cohesive enough to be sensed for a duration. Those patterns which posses > Relative Cohesiveness for greater durations are said to posses more > Static quality. > > When you want to speak about it using language, one that has only three > Cases of subject, object, possessive and utilizes predicated statements > To build systems of analytically sensible thought systems as methods of > Attaining Comprehension, a paradox emerges. To communicate patterns > They need to be isolated and labeled then meant to be understood as > The active pattern itself. So when we say Static and dynamic we mean to > Convey relative degrees of process in motion in a pattern Relative to > other Patterns. > > When we say that things are more static than others, we do not mean > They are strictly static patterns. The static/dynamic interpretation > Is a human interpretation of dynamic process. > > Contrary to Chris, I do not think of it in terms of a static entity > "responding" to some unknown force called dynamic quality. That would be > Looking at it in a subject/object way, which MoQ breaks from. > > It implies cause and effect it implies dynamic is separate from static. > > MoQ simply falls apart at this level when interpreted this way. > > Matter is energy, thoughts are energy, we are energy. Patterns of > Convergent energy. And that's about as close as my tiny skull > Can get. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:55:10 +0100 > From: "Christoffer Ivarsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Achtung MOQers! > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > >> And I was questioning your reasoning, which was *based* on that example. > > Hello Marsha > > Fair enough. The following taken by itself from a general metaphysical > view > (my interpretation of the MOQ) :Do you not agree with my general > assessment > that people can be predominated with either the social or the intellectual > level (and in some cases the biological)? And do you not agree with my > assessment that to be dominated by one of these patterns makes one view > things fundamentally different? > > Regards > > Chris > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:05:46 -0800 > From: Steven Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ Levels > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:20:28 -0500 > From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > [Ron] > As intellect theory, intellect is not the value of the s/o divide, > it's the value of the socio/individual divide. > > [Arlo] > > So when Platt quotes Pirsig, "[intellect] is the collection and > manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stand for > patterns of experience", one has to recall that for Pirsig this > "collection" and "manipulation" is socially-mediated. It derives from > the social level. And with that recollection in mind (pun intended), > we can see how intellect is the point of confluence between > individual agents and social activity. It is not about the value of > the "individual/social divide", but rather about the value of the > "individual/social merging". > > Ron: > Well stated. Focus on this value seems to help define how the > intellectual > Level is understood. The debate may rage from there on the emphasis of > Either. (which it usually does) the point being that it's this value > Co-dependency which defines it. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:37:45 -0500 > From: Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > [Ian] > Glad you find it "funny" Arlo ;-) > > [Arlo] > Well, funny "groan" not funny "ha ha". I also liked the "grain of > truth" comment. Since all I had done was quote three key passages > from Pirsig, I am glad to know Platt thinks there is a "grain of > truth" in them. > > What I find funny "ha ha" is Ham's lament that I am "hindering the > acceptance of the MOQ". That one had me squirting coffee out of my > nose this morning. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:58:06 -0500 > From: MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Achtung MOQers! > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > At 09:55 AM 2/14/2008, you wrote: > >> > And I was questioning your reasoning, which was *based* on that >> > example. >> >>Hello Marsha >> >>Fair enough. The following taken by itself from a general metaphysical >>view >>(my interpretation of the MOQ) :Do you not agree with my general >>assessment >>that people can be predominated with either the social or the intellectual >>level (and in some cases the biological)? And do you not agree with my >>assessment that to be dominated by one of these patterns makes one view >>things fundamentally different? >> >>Regards >> >>Chris > > Chris, > > Sounds reasonable, but I don't know. I can only judge by my own > behavior. When I'm in a social situation, I tend to act > socially. I'm an introvert and alone I tend to be far more > intellectual. I also tend not to be judgmental, or want to jump to > conclusions. I don't know what I can know about people in general > based on a superficial observation. In fact, I don't know what I can > actually know about a person even when I know them intimately. So > no, I cannot agree with you. > > Marsha > > > > > Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:13:19 -0500 > From: Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > [Ron] > I think what Arlo was getting at was that society is a collection of > individuals. > > [Arlo] > I want to be clear here, Ron, and this is not what I was getting at. > The "individual" and "society" are mutually dialectic. The mind, the > "self" is a social phenomenon. It derives from the confluence of > unique, proprietary experience and the assimilation of a collective > consciousness. It does NOT originate out of "nature" or "the world of > objects", only to then form societies. > > [Ron] > Individuals who speak the same language share similar ideas follow > similar rules each individual having the power to influence the way > the other individuals think and act. > > [Arlo] > Individuals do not share similar ideas, we ARE these shared ideas > along with our unique experiences. It is confluence of these two > things that create the "self". Our voices are the appropriated > dialogue of our culture resonating with the unique experiences > derived from our biological separateness. This is where the concepts > of "agency" and "structure" break away from their traditional use, > and become mutually enabling. "Agency" does not fight against > structure, agency derives from structure. But at the same time, > structure derives from acts of agency. > > The other thing to remember is that it is not individual v. > individual in coercing "free agents" to act or think a certain way. > When Pirsig says "our intellectual description of nature is always > culturally derived", he is pointing out that seeing and not-seeing, > or how sand is sorted, the entire way we order our thoughts is > derived from the language habits and customs of the culture. "We are > suspended in language", as Pirsig quoted Bohr. > > And this is not a bad thing! Language does not blind us, it enables > us to see. What we have to remember is that this sight, however, is > not "objective", but structured. > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 27, Issue 50 > ******************************************* > 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/
