Marsha, the opposite of a pattern is you.  Believe in yourself.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:37 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tuukka,
> 
> Unfortunately, I do not understand what you are presenting.  I do not have a 
> familiarity with the terms as you are using them.  I understand we all might 
> find different aspects of the MoQ important, and may approach that interest 
> from different points-of-view.  Broadly, I tend to want to consider a pattern 
> from a position of its opposite.  That allows for the widest range of 
> possibilities for individual instances and the most dynamic point-of-view.  
> But that's just my opinion.  Bottomline, for me, is that Reality = 
> Experience(patterned experience/unpatterned experience).   I think to 
> categorize patterns into the four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical 
> structure:  inorganic, biological, social and intellectual is brilliant, 
> rational, modern, and suggests a way to bridge Western science with Eastern 
> wisdom.  But this is only my own perspective.  
> 
> But that's enough of me repeating my point-of-view once again, to the point 
> of ad nauseam some would say.  Hopefully as you continue to present your 
> point-of-view it wll become bstter understood.  
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:10 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
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

Reply via email to