On Aug 23, 2010, at 6:49 AM, MarshaV wrote:
> Marsha: > 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? Marsha: This is where I might discuss how I think science objectifies patterns. In preparation for study "science" needs precision in meaning. To chase down all aspects of a pattern/process is too unwieldy, so an object of study is created binding the definition to a pattern's core similarities. All that is dissimilar from the core and all emotional responses and all anomalies are disregarded to make this new entity laboratory ready. As time, money and emotions are invested in this entity it takes on the aura of having an independent existence. But this 'entity' is in way real. This interpretation is work-in-process, so fire away... ___ 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
