To Ron:
Thanks for the Wikipedia article on atoms you
included in your last addresed to me.
In the preceding line to the Wikipedia quote tou
write "Keeping patterns in mind:"
I read it, keeping patterns in mind, but I failed to
see anything to substantiate the proposition: 'a rock
is a pattern'.
I've never argued against the notion that a rock may
be said as made up of atoms,ions or molecules.Nor
anything againstthe prevalent theories about
elementary particles conforming atoms. Nor against the
notion that we can discern patterns in most
collections of atoms, especially so if they are
structured like in crystals.
I'll repeat my argument again, because there lies, I
think, the source of our discrepancy:
"The fact that some thing includes parts or
components which may be properly called patterns does
not make the whole a pattern"
Ron:
Let me first start out by apologizing for my intensity.
What I have in my mind has taken on aspects of preconception.
When my Physics teacher in high school stated after a lengthy
Discussion about atoms and particles that mass was stored energy
That it was more accurate to think of subatomic particles, atoms
And molecules as patterns comprised of whirlpools of force.
The natural question was what's force? Some theories state opposing
Charge.
Now what that energy is, is unknown and takes on multifaceted forms Much
like DQ. I think even Pirsig bridges the concept of energy Or force that
binds, as value, as preference. And this is where I form my concepts.
When Pirsig stated that reality is composed of patterns of value, every
Last bit. He meant every last bit. This fits in with what I know about
Physics which isn't extensive, but I like to think I have halfway
Decent familiarity with it. I try to read up.
The best analogy I've come across for how I conceive of value theory
Is that of a pointillist painting. Or a magazine photograph, each color
And form is composed of a collection of overlapping types of dots, 4
types
Usually in standard printing process. In a rosette pattern preferably.
So If I understand your argument you state that just because forms are
composed of patterns does not make them patterns themselves.
To the human mind no, what the mind perceives and the senses supply
Are distinct and simplified. It reads that collection of patterns as
a whole.
Even mathematically whole's only exist as a matter of conceptual
convenience.
Measurement and number would run on forever unless they are limited
And rounded.
These are some of my reasons for developing my concepts.
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/
