[MD] When is a pattern not static?

[Ham Priday]

Chris [Ron mentioned] --


> Well, no, patterns are never in themselves Dynamic, but they
> respond to Dynamic Stimuli (A Quality Event?)  The different
> rituals you mentioned are in fact social static patterns, however,
> preferably a certain Dynamic Quality should be present - one
> can simply go thought with the procedures lined out as social
> patterns of value, but if there is no Dynamic Quality to it, well,
> one might think it wouldn't feel all that good.  So, those things
> described are all static. In fact: everything you can ever
> describe is static, since you cannot describe or capture
> Dynamic Quality  - if you do: it is immediately Static.

Then how do you account for Ron's 180 degree turn-around?

[Ron]:
> But to be exact, yes you are quite right as I understand it.
> So I guess we can answer the thread title by saying
> theoretically a pattern is never static.

[Chris]:
> As I said, the patterns are static, but responds to Quality
> (if they are to survive that is) So, then we see them they are
> static, although from a MOQ perspective we can
> understand that they respond to something we call Dynamic
> Quality - that we do so is of course a static description
> in itself, but not so much as other words/descriptions.

It's a nice euphemism, Chris -- like "go with the flow" -- but it doesn't 
hold up when you analyze it.  Also, it doesn't explain what a "thing" is. We 
still don't know if a rock is supposed to be something in our head, in a 
collective intellect, or in the "real world".  Whether an object or event is 
an abstraction of Quality, an intellectual pattern, or a piece of Nature.

The reason we don't know is that Pirsig never provided a metaphysical thesis 
to support his theory.  It's all suggestion and innuendo gleaned from a work 
of fiction.  That the MoQuist must resort to elaborate abstractions to 
express something as obvious as self-consciousness perpetuates its mystery 
and inventiveness.  The followers try their best to write as if they 
understood the author's LevelSpeak, but the S/O duality resists their 
efforts, and in the end they're not enlightened.

I continue to regard existence as a division of subjective sensibility from 
objective beingness, the absolute integration of which defines the primary 
source.  It's a simple, cogent ontology that has logical plausibility 
without rejecting man's innate spirituality.  I think any philosophy
that fails to acknowledge the individual as the focal center of awareness is 
doomed from the start.  If human sensibility cannot transcend the physical 
world and realize a connection to ultimate reality, existence is 
meaningless.  And so is philosophy.

Those are my thoughts, Chris.  But I do appreciate your candor and 
willingness to articulate the MoQ position as you see it.  In that sense, 
this exchange has been quite beneficial to me.
Kindest regards,
Ham