Hello everyone On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:07 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Hello Dan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it best to consider static patterns of value from two different >>>>>>> points-of-view. The first would be the nature of all patterns: >>>>>>> conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and >>>>>>> conceptualized. The process of conceptualization would pertain to all >>>>>>> patterns (ideas/language). >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan: >>>>>> Are you saying these patterns exist in and of themselves? >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> Not at all, I am not saying that patterns exist in and of themselves. I >>>>> was suggesting that all patterns (inorganic, biological, social & >>>>> intellectual) have an interdependent relationship with the process of >>>>> conceptualization. >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> Why isn't this a case of mistaking the finger for the moon at which it >>>> is pointing? >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Why would it be mistaking the finger for the moon? >> >> Dan: >> It appears (to me) that you seem to be saying all patterns (the moon) >> are dependent on our idea of them (the finger pointing at the moon). >> But perhaps I read it wrongly. > > Marsha: > I understand all patterns to be a reflection of the moon.
Dan: I understand all intellectual patterns to be reflections. > > >> Marsha: >>> Can patterns ever represent more than pointing? I'd answer no. >> >> Dan: >> I would agree if we were talking about intellectual patterns to the >> exclusion of all else. But according to the MOQ biological patterns >> have very little to do with intellectual patterns other than sharing >> an evolutionary history. Remember the part in LILA about these cells >> being billions of years old? > > Marsha: > But I am not talking about only intellectual patterns when I state that ALL > patterns have a relationship with the conceptualization process. I > understand RMP to have said that the levels are discrete, not patterns. Has > RMP specifically explained the conceptualization process (consciousness)? Dan: Wow... talk about a loaded question... has anyone? I assume we are using the MOQ here as a guideline for discussions, at least we should be using it... I know a good number of contributors here seem to feel they're too intelligent to bother reading Robert Pirsig's work. However, I do not count you among them. Marsha: I agree that the more sophisticated manipulation of abstract concepts "with no corresponding particular experience" are a function of the Intellectual Level, but all patterns have a relationship with the conceptualization process. Imho. Dan: If we think about them, yes. I rarely think about biological level functions such as my heart beating, my eyes blinking, my breathing, and so I don't see how they are a part of the conceptualization process, unless of course I do think about them. Hence, not all patterns can be seen as having a relationship with conceptualization all the time. > > >>>>> Dan: >>>>>> If so, then >>>>>> I disagree. I think they are provisional... they work until something >>>>>> better comes along. Seeing static patterns of quality as ever-changing >>>>>> and impermanent seems to go against Robert Pirsig's notion that it is >>>>>> best to find a balance between Dynamic Quality and static quality. If >>>>>> static patterns are always changing, how could we hope to form static >>>>>> latches? Wouldn't any evolutionary advance necessarily fall back? >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> A river is ever-changing, but changes within a stable pattern. Skin is >>>>> ever-changing, but changes within a stable pattern. Static patterns of >>>>> value pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, >>>>> predictable pattern. >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> So the patterns are not 'ever-changing' so much as changing within the >>>> context of stability... or static patterns responding to Dynamic >>>> Quality... >>> >>> Marsha: >>> No, they are ever-changing, but change within a stable, predictable >>> pattern. Certainly within the relationship with consciousness (the flow >>> thoughts), patterns come into existence, transform and pass away in a >>> moment, and a pattern is never exactly the same as it was even a moment >>> before. Additionally, patterns would be different for each individual >>> dependent on their static pattern history. >> >> Dan: >> So, ever-changing patterns change within predictable patterns. Where >> does Dynamic Quality fit into this scheme? Or does it? > > Marsha: > I have nothing to say about DQ. Though DQ can be experienced, it is > undivideable, undefinable and unknowable. You, yourself, have often > mentioned it is best approached by stating what it is not: It is not change. Dan: We both agree and disagree... I think the MOQ would say we define Dynamic Quality all the time... it's just that 'it' is inexhaustible. The definition never ends. We cannot nail it down and say: There! That's Dynamic Quality! 'It' is not this, not that. Change might be seen as a response to Dynamic Quality, not Dynamic Quality. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
