Hi T. I enjoyed your presentation below. While it may not address the fundamental nature of patterns (as MoQ tries to do), it provides an interesting progression which is revealing and is somewhat consistent with MoQ. While the control pattern does not necessarily fit into the the "set" as presented, it does imply a fundamental ground which provides "rules of interaction". This fundamental ground could be considered Quality.
In truth, the search for the meaning of existence in terms of causative reasons is a bit overblown, and I am happy to start in the middle. Just like my exact position of "middle" in the arrow of time, patterns exist exactly in the middle of what was and what will be. We can say that patterns "cannot exist without causes" because of such and such, but in the end does this form of enlightenment have any bearing on the presence of patterns? For example, I am here because my mother gave me birth. Does that give me any more comfort as to why I am here? Such is the quest for meaning described in a linear (or logical) world rather than an interactive (give and take) world. Such logic is presented by a cause-effect (or "if-then") paradigm which may or may not impart meaning depending on what kind of question one is asking. If we ask what is the source of patterns, we can point to Quality. In the same way, if we ask what is the source of Quality, we can point to patterns. In previous posts I have introduced the concept of IQ (Interactive Quality), and I find the RQ concept interesting as well. The acronym IQ was also used to denote an expression of the intellectual level, for reasons that I will leave unstated at this point but are part of your progression, although not necessarily at the end. Both RQ and IQ can represent the classical and romantic split which Pirsig uses to describe Quality. I am not sure if you read the posts on Dionysian and Apollonian sentiments (a la Nietchze), but this is also similar. Give those posts a read if you get a chance, I did not add anything of significance to them. One intent of mine was to introduce a third component for MoQ, since all great philosophies have such a thing (or more) and most useful expression of reality exists as triumvirates (ie, energy, mass and their interconversion (Higgs field), or the father, the son, and the holy ghost). This is because DQ and sq alone do not give any depth, and any stool requires three legs to stand. The dichotomy of DQ and sq simply states of their existence, and not the manner in which they create the reality which we perceive (at least some of us). Therefore, a third, Independent concept is required. Independent because, for example, we can have "good" and "evil", but such polar opposites are not sufficient to describe our reality, and "the battle" between good an evil is required; neither good nor evil have a battle component within them, it arrises when they conflict. Thus IQ presents, in my opinion, how DQ and sq interact. The final triangle which is the minimum required to give something depth, is therefor DQ, sq, IQ. This creates sufficiency for the concept of MoQ, which can then be used to explain all. We can say that we present terms of Metaphysics as analogies (approximations of what is being recognized using comparison techniques). But what, pray tell, are they analogies of? Perhaps they are analogies of something that cannot be analogized (the undefinable, unknowable, ineffable, etc). If this is the case, then they are not analogies at all but perhaps distractions. If we look at the root of what an analogy is supposed to be, we cannot say that our "pointings" are truly analogies. If not, then perhaps they are the real thing. If we assume that our concepts are as real as anything else (and why should they not be, we create everything in our heads), then at least we do not have to spend time looking for that which is hidden. We take the world at face value, and work from there. Who knows, what appears to be may be what is. Cheers, Mark On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
