Marsha,
I agree. I'd say Pirsig's patterns are descriptive abstractions of
conventional-habitual experience.
I also think that conventional-habitual experience is the same as
romantic quality.
But because Pirsig's patterns are an analogy of conventional-habitual
experience, I think they do not include normative things such as formal
logic and axiomatic mathematics. To be sure, such formal constructs may
be derived from Pirsig's patterns, but once that has been done, they are
inherently independent of experience.
In other words, I believe it's possible to construct a normative set of
patterns which is an analogy of Pirsig's patterns, but not the same thing.
1. The fundamental normative pattern is the /existence pattern/. It
contains all existing entities, such as symbols and their basic
relations.
2. From the existence pattern emerges the /increment pattern/. This
pattern includes all existing structures that can have duplicates or
iterations. It contains variables and coefficients.
3. From the increment pattern emerges the /interaction pattern/. That
pattern includes all rules regarding what kind of increments are
possible and what are not. It contains functions and topology.
4. From the interaction pattern emerges the /control pattern/, which
contains rules on what can be stated of interactions and what can
not be stated. It contains things like axiomatization and completeness.
-Tuukka
22.12.2011 13:29, MarshaV kirjoitti:
Hi Mark,
I see patterns, of which words and definitions are an aspect, to all be analogy
for conventional-habitual experience.
Marsha
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:40 PM, 118<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Marsha,
OK I see how you are using analogy. I would use the word symbolism. There,
there was no complaint there, I must be improving my attitude. Thanks for
pointing it out.
Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark
On Dec 20, 2011, at 11:05 PM, MarshaV<[email protected]> wrote:
On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:19 AM, 118<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Marsha,
I am not griping, I am just talking. Settle down, I am not out to get
you. My only point was that non-duality is a word which we give the
idea that there is no "other".
And I don't think you're out to get me, you just tend towards complaint.
An analogy is when we represent something with a similar thing.
Something that is hard to describe is presented as something that is
similar.
I used 'nonduality' as similar to a type of experience. But explanation, too,
with its use of signs and symbols (words) is the use of analogies all the way
down.
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
