On Aug 23, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Magnus Berg wrote: > On 2010-08-23 12:49, MarshaV wrote: >> On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Magnus Berg wrote: >> >>> On 2010-08-22 17:34, MarshaV wrote: >> >>>> Marsha: The fact that static patterns of value are all that is >>>> conceptualized, does not mean that a pattern is a concept. >>> >>> Magnus: Right, did I say something differently? Wouldn't you want >>> to say that to Andre really? He was the one who said that >>> mother-instinct and self-sacrifice was concepts. >> >> Since you neglected to repost what you wrote, hard for me to answer >> your first question. As far as Andre's statements, also missing, >> mother-instinct and self-sacrifice are patterns conceptualized. I'm >> guessing that is what he meant. > > Neglected? You were the one starting on a blank sheet. > > But sure, let me rephrase that. Have I *ever* suggested anything differently? > > Regarding Andre, I thought you follow the thread in which you participate? > Just search for self-sacrifice, it's not that hard. > > And I don't agree they are conceptualized patterns *only*. I think they are > patterns in themselves as well, without us conceptualizing them. That's the > point of this thread.
Marsha: No, I don't feel like defending myself from innuendoes. If you have a case to present, present it in full. >>>> Marsha: A pattern exists across many individuals and across many >>>> generations of time. To me, they are ever-changing, relative and >>>> impermanent. >>>> >>>> Do you see a problem with this? >>> >>> Magnus: Just that you just said two quite contradictory statements. >>> First you say they do exist across individuals and generations, >>> then you say they change. How do you know they are the same >>> patterns? >> >> >> >> I meant that patterns are not individual, bounded, discrete, >> independent, entities. To repeat patterns exist across many >> individuals and across many generations of of time. Patterns are >> ever-changing, relative and impermanent. Ever-changing, relative and >> impermanent does not mean without similarity. Experiences can be >> very different and still hang together as similar to other >> experiences. The repetition and similarity create the pattern, yes? > > No, the pattern creates similarity and repetition! Marsha: It does probably go both ways. > Come on Marsha! Now you're inventing a new metaphysics again. Marsha: I seem to recollect you've invented your own unique interpretation of some aspects of the level structure. > If repetition and similarity create the pattern, then repetition and > similarity must be more primary stuff of reality than patterns. But they > aren't. The MoQ's first division is DQ/SQ, then SQ is divided into the levels > containing patterns. Do you see repetition or similarity in there? Marsha: Do you see repetition and similarity not being there? Pattern, to me, indicates repetition and similarity, as opposed to exactness. Maybe you like your own words better. I cannot worry about your predilections. ___ 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
