To Ron and others:
>From Ron: "A rock is a pattern of energy. Energy in
the pattern of atoms
Repeated in its configurations as molecules. It
modulates as
It repeats in time and structure radiating and
absorbing energy.
It most certainly is a collection of patterns in flux.
Pirsig states that value creates patterns, all static
patterns.
Rocks included as well as thoughts about rocks.
This was the big epiphany. I still don't see why SA
and Magnus
Are giving me so much resistance on this."
======
I can't answer for SA and Magnus but I could tell you
about my resistance to accept what you said above.
Starting with "a rock is a pattern of energy":
>From what could we infer that? From the fact that a
rock 'has energy' ? We may ascribe to a rock energy,
mass and position in space. Does that mean that a rock
is a pattern of mass or of position?
You go on saying :"Energy in the pattern of atoms.
Repeated in its configurations as molecules". I guess
that you are probably alluding to the fact that most
rocks contain crystals. Now, crystals are probably the
best example of structural patterns, may be the
closest we have to 'ideal, perfect, patterns'. But
the fact that something contains chunks of crystals
doesn't make that thing into a pattern. Not anymore
that a salt shaker may be considered a pattern because
it is full of salt crystals.
We don't have to go so far inside to look for
patterns on rocks. Take any piece of rock, clean it
and polish it a bit and you'll probably find the most
exquisite patterns on its surface (I happen to know
that because photographing rocks and stones is a hobby
of mine). A number of rocks also show sedimentary
fringes that conform patterns. All that though doesn't
make a rock into a pattern; it makes it only an object
that includes visual patterns.
If I may jump from rocks to rugs for a moment? I
have in the living room a Persian rug ( a cheap
imitation actually) it has many intricate, elaborate,
patterns; but the rug itself is not a pattern, nor a
tree is a pattern just because its leaves are
patterned.
You may think perhaps I am being too fussy (not
fuzzy, but fussy) with words and expressions. I admit
I am. Thing is that language is the main tool we have
to communicate with each other and when we use fuzzy
language we don't communicate properly.
An important note to you and others like you
here that keep saying that a rock or a tree or any
object or subject are patterns: I am not claiming that
I am Right and you are Wrong.What I'm merely saying is
that, according to the meaning I ascribed to the word
Pattern, your propositions are objectionable. The word
Pattern has a lot of meanings and it could well be
that you are ascribing to it a different meaning
altogether. If so, you ought to state it clearly;
otherwise we could be arguing till kingdom comes and
never learn anything.
And one more thing: to say that a rock is a
pattern "because Pirsig said so" is not stating a
sense or a meaning. It is merely to justify through
Magister dixit, a bad habit of previous generations.
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
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/
