Greetings Mark, Sent from my iPad
>>>> >>>>> Mark: >>>>> What I was trying to say about quantum mechanics is that it is a >>>>> mathematical description of matter. The notion that matter is >>>>> non-local arises from how the math is used. Therefore non-locality is >>>>> not a result of matter actually being non-local, it is a result of the >>>>> math used to describe it. The problem with physicists (imo) is that >>>>> they think that the math equations actually ARE matter. >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> Patterns are ever-changing, conditionally codependent, impermanent and >>>> conceptually constructed, whether intellectual, social, biological or >>>> inorganic. Within the quantum world, there is the measurement problem. >>>> And hope for interconnectedness. >>> >>> [Mark] >>> As you know, I have a problem with "patterns" since it seem to rigid >>> for me. In my opinion, patterns arise after conceptualization. This >>> would draw a line between DQ and conceptualization, which I do not >>> believe is quite accurate. But, that is just me. >>> >> >> Marsha: >> Here is my understanding of patterns. Please note, though I state >> that all patterns are conceptualized, that does not mean that patterns >> are conceptual (all concepts). For I do not. Patterns may very well, >> at the very least, have a perceptual piece. Here it is again: >> >> I think it best to consider static patterns of value from two different >> points of view. One would be the nature of all patterns: conditionally >> co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized. >> A second would be by categorization by evolutionary function - >> inorganic, biological, social and intellectual – into their four-level, >> hierarchical structure. >> > > > Mark: > Yes, I think I see what you are presenting. I would use a systems > approach rather than a pattern approach to convey what I believe you > are saying. A system is dynamic, a pattern seems more static to me. > > Personally, I approach MoQ more from the inside looking out, than the > outside looking in. That is, I do not see myself as a pattern, > although I can create them. We are not actually devided up into four > levels, nor do we need to abide by conditionality. Again, all just my > opinion. > > Cheers, Mark It is very much a system, or process, when it is understood that static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. Patterns depend upon innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), depend upon parts and the collection of parts (patterns), depend upon conceptual designation (patterns). !Patterns have no independent existence! Further, these patterns represent "what works" depending upon on an individual's static pattern of life history. I know that you know that there is no inside/outside dichotomy. The fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality. Contemplating "patterns" is very interesting. To follow them can lead to quite a realization. Imho 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
