I don't think I am confusing existences. What you are presenting are contingencies. That is that patterns can only change because of pre-existing conditions. This would appear to be a deterministic outlook. Thus, the individual (of whatever nature) has no free will at it's disposal. Pirsig states that "everything" has free will. By my interpretation, this is DQ. It makes the unfolding of reality "unpredictable" at the individual level. This then brings in the concept of individual responsibility, and thus the Moral fabric of reality.
No matter how innumerable the causes you envision, there does not seem to be room for morality. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not see how your patterns approach leaves room for free will. I am interested to see how I can be corrected in my logic.
Patterns, if not completely tied to previous patterns, can change through the principles of free will. In this way they are not the inevitable result of an ultimately predictable original idea, be it the big bang or some intelligent design.
> You seem to confuse having "no independent existence" with having 'no existence' at all, but this is not what I am saying. From a static (conventional) point-of-view, individuals conceptualize patterns into distinct entities. Patterns appear to exist in their own right, but if they did exist in their own right, THEN, they would be permanent and could never change or evolve. Patterns exist dependent on innumerable causes and conditions (patterns); patterns exist dependent on parts (patterns); patterns exist in dependence upon a conceptual designation (patterns).
> On Feb 29, 2012, at 5:15 PM, 118 <ununoctiums@gmai...> wrote:
>> If patterns have no independent existence, how is it that you
>> recognize them as distinct patterns? What you are really saying is
>> that there is only one pattern, that spreads about, co-operating with
>> itself. What makes you want to divide them up into many? Are you the
>> pattern separator? Why would you even want to do that?
>> According to your metaphysics, Static Quality cannot exist in stable
>> patterns since such patterns do not exist; we only have a monistic
>> pattern. Where would you say your plurality of patterns comes from if
>> they have no inherent existence? With your inclusion of all into one
>> pattern, are you speaking of God?
>> On 2/29/12, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
>>> "Nonrelativizably"? It is you who are exhibiting stuckness in some
>>> post-modern philosophical, muddled thinking (words and concepts), or is it
>>> Plato's distortion. Either way it is stuckness. You are stuck in your
>>> representation of relativity. Let go of that. That understanding is
>>> static. Move on.
>>> Quality may be compared to quantum physics's nonlocality. Statics quality
>>> exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. Patterns have no
>>> independent existence.
> 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.