On Jul 25, 2010, at 2:55 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha asked how patterns and objects differ.
dmb, I asked what YOU thought the difference was between patterns and objects. > dmb says: > > Previously, I noticed that you've used (or rather misused) the word > "reification" to make the same objectionable point, namely that static > patterns are ever-changing and amorphous. Reification is a fallacy, a > conceptual error wherein abstractions are mistaken for real things. You could > call it the thingification of ideas. Plato's forms would be the classic > example but this is also what James and Pirsig are saying about subjects and > objects. When they say that subjects and objects are not the starting points > of experience but rather concepts derived from experience, they are saying > that subjects and objects have been reified. They are concepts mistaken for > ontological realities, for real substances. This first paragraph is your critique of your confused understanding of what I think. It does not address the question. --------- > To say that objects are patterns of inorganic quality is to > say that they aren't pre-existing material realities but rather > they are among the many marvelous analogues we've > created in response to DQ. Analogues? > Man is the measure of all things, not the measurer. How does this address the question I asked? > That is to say we invented reality and so it's not pre-existing. How does this address a comparison between patterns and objects? > Man is a participant in the creation of all things. Every last bit of it, he > says. In this paragraph who is "he says", and how does it address the difference between patterns and objects. --------- > Now the experience from which we derive ideas such a rocks is quite real. Patterns or objects? > That experience is what makes our reality seem so substantial > and the idea of substance works quite well in many situations. I do not notice any reference to patterns or objects. > But it's still just a secondary reality, a tool we invented to deal with > experience. Not reference to patterns or objects here either. > So is the so-called physical universe. Patterns? Objects? Intellectual competence? > It's just a very grand and elaborate analogue. And how does this beautiful pronouncement address the difference between patterns and objects? > Pirsig reminds us that "substance" or "matter" was invented by the ancient > philosophers. And the difference between independent objects and static patterns of value is addressed here how? > He reminds us that the existence of such a thing is really just inferred > from experience. Yes? > It's a theoretical entity that is supposed to explain how the particular > qualities set of qualities that make up a rock all stick together or inhere. This doesn't address the difference between objects and patterns. > Its roundness, heaviness, greyness or whatever are supposed to be > features of a thing, then the thing in itself becomes more real than the > experiences from which they were derived, the original experience that > produced the "thing" in the first place is relegated to "merely" a subjective > impression. So the question (the difference between objects and patterns) is a question you haven't had much time to investigate? > James and Pirsig are flipping this idea upside down and that's their > Copernican revolution. > > And that's how patterns are different from things. See? Got it. Marsha ___ 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/md/archives.html
