On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:48 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
>> [Craig]
>>> Inorganic patterns (iron filings) recognize other inorganic
>>> patterns (magnets); biological patterns (predators) recognize the patterns
>>> of their prey.
>>
>> [David]
>>> How do you know that?
>>
>> A hawk circles overhead, then swoops down on a mouse. How does it
>> distinguish the mouse from
>> everything else around? By patterns. You reject a lot of good science by
>> holding a bad metaphysics.
>
> We can go around in circles if you like Craig. I can easily come back and say
> how do you 'know' that a hawk does that? Any idea you ever try and
> communicate with me is going to be just that. An idea. Ideas come before
> hawks and mice.
>
>>
>> [David]
>>> It is only, our unique human minds which can recognise
>>> these patterns. This is in line with Pirsig's quote that it is ideas which
>>> create
>>> what we know as inorganic patterns.
>>
>> "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce
>> what we know as matter." - Lila's Child.
>>
>> Yes, our knowledge depends on concepts--intellectual patterns. But a hawk &
>> a mouse are
>> biological patterns.
>> Intellectual patterns come from social patterns, which come from biological
>> patterns, usw.
>
> Yes, and that is a good *idea* which you hold. I'll restate the order of
> events... Quality first. Ideas second. Matter third. It's a good idea that
> evolutionarily matter came first. But it is just that an idea. The reason why
> we use that idea and why it has been so successful is because the quality of
> that idea is before the idea itself.
>
>>
>> [Dan]
>>> Predators do not recognize patterns of prey... they exhibit preferences.
>>
>> How does the hawk prefer a mouse to a piece of wood? By recognizing the
>> mouse pattern.
>> You reject a lot of good science by holding a bad metaphysics.
>
> Once again, this is a good idea. It still does not contradict my original
> statement that patterns have a fundamental intellectual component....
>
> "The reason we call them this is because they are only ever recognised as
> patterns *because* of our intellect. They only exist *because* of our
> intellect."
>
> The Metaphysics of Quality with all of it's levels and distinctions is an
> intellectual creation.
>
>>
>> [Marsha]
>>> 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).
>>> The second point-of-view would be categorization by evolutionary function
>>> into their four-level,
>>> hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.
>>
>> Marsha,
>> Yes, thank you, this is on the right track.
>> Craig
>
> I disagree. It ignores how the mind works. We see things as patterns which
> are static and do not change without some other un-named thing.
>
> -David.
Hi David,
What do you mean how the mind works? That there is a cognative relationship
between static patterns and mind seems obvious. That cognitive process is
ever-changing seems obvious. Seems to me a constant interdependent feedback
system that rolls back into pattern. But how do think the mind works?
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
