Magnus,
What I did was present my view and ask for your feedback.
That was all. Here is my statement:
The fact that static patterns of value are all that is conceptualized,
does not mean that a pattern is a concept. 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?
There was no accusation there, and nothing for me to defend.
Marsha
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: 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!
>
> Come on Marsha! Now you're inventing a new metaphysics again. 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?
>
> Magnus
>
>
> 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
___
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
