¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Helene, it will be a long time before an authoritative taxonomy of “patterns” is completed.  Last night, 4am & trying to sleep, I had an insight. The defining aspect of “pattern” is not forms (of which there are many), but how they are perceived.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 In short, patterns are sems (semiotic structures), which are comprised of “information” not bound within matter/energy systems (as is DNA – we can make sems to represent DNA). Most are created by humans, as both texts and architecture. The star constellations are patterns/sems because they exist only by our perspective into a 3d star field.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Is a tree a pattern; it is not a sem? But, humans can abstract a sem from their observations of a tree, creating a pattern.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Might how a sem is constructed, influence its “character”, as a pattern?  Example: the construction was done to music. Most patterns lack definitive names. I would consider naming patterns an independent dimension – and the namer a necessary feature.

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 I must now pass on patterns.

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Larry/nuet

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0  

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 EMAILS:

Hi Larry,

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Glad to know you are improving rapidly. I hope you get back your motricity and memory back soon too!

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 You write:

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Impressed by the great diversity of responses.  Points to our imprecise use of language, which has been pointed out by many; specifically George Lakoff, and Doug Hofstadter. Is there a “pseudo-objective” meaning to the word “pattern”? Does everyone have secondary meanings – or how are they distributed? I confess I don’t comprehend the objective of your research.

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 This maybe the case where an unqualified use of the term, pattern,  should be abandoned. Love is such a term I won’t use, unqualified. OTOH, poetry may play with multiple meanings.

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 I agree that the responses are very diverse, though I can see some connections there. Interestingly, Helmut Leitner, who is a ‘pattern expert’ (in the sense of Christopher Alexander), made a similar remark, and mentioned love as well! Though I argued that QWAN, Christopher Alexander’s Quality Without A Name, that architectural patterns should achieve is from of the same ineffable nature. Maybe these fuzzy words are the ones that can lead us to wordless languages? Because they can ‘pull’ together like a scaffold things that cannot really be named or defined in precise ways, but play as an attractor?

¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 You ask about secondary meaning and their distribution. This is what we are looking into right now.

¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 Rather than a ‘pseudo-objective’ meaning, maybe we can speak of a generic one with multiple instances?

Something like: A pattern is:

A repeated/repeatable [list of alternative cited words] arrangement  [list of types of arrangements cited] of elements [list of types of elements cited] in space or time that we [list of different types of encountering/generating modes] in [list of places we find or generate partners into], that help us [different ‘action’ or ‘mediation’ options here with different levels of depth], and that we process in [list of types of] form.

¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 To be tweaked of course. Probably any type of pattern can be expressed this way: a fractal, a tiling, and addiction, a healthy lifestyle, a thought pattern, a financial behavior, nature’s regenerative process, human interaction, blueprint, etc…

Take care and be well!

Helene

¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:58 PM, larry victor <nuet1370@gmail.com> wrote:

¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0  Dear Helene,     I finally studied your report, my crazy computer kept wiping it out, but I could get it again from your email.  I confess my memory is so poor that I have no memory contributing.

¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 Impressed by the great diversity of responses.  Points to our imprecise use of language, which has been pointed out by many; specifically George Lakoff, and Doug Hofstadter. Is there a “pseudo-objective” meaning to the word “pattern”? Does everyone have secondary meanings – or how are they distributed? I confess I don’t comprehend the objective of your research.

¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 This maybe the case where an unqualified use of the term, pattern,  should be abandoned. Love is such a term I won’t use, unqualified. OTOH, poetry may play with multiple meanings.

¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 Our reality demands the creation of nu digital “languages” (not to be spoken) and new ways they are expresses and displayed. Not sure how or whether we should tinker with spoken languages, until we learn more.

¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 I am improving rapidly on many fronts. I need considerable occupational therapy and special tools for my neuropathic hands and arms. Surgery healing well, but I must wear a collar for more months.

¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 Anthropologists have much to learn about important, but, subtle differences in languages. The fundamental concept of “relation” differs greatly between languages. In some languages, the term refers to both endnodes and link. In other languages, they only refer to the link. There is much more to language difference that can be achied via “translation”.

¶ 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 Larry/nuet