[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[118]

Hi David,

Perhaps this is "the core" of a disagreement, although I think that
"core" is rather a contrived word.  I am glad that you think that
"patterns" is the best form of presentation for you, since we strive
for "the best".  I would also say that we strive for "betterness", and
to simply stop with one form of understanding is not in the spirit of
MoQ.  We seem to form factions in this forum and then belabor specific
terms as if they are the final representation, then the arguments stem
around whether these terms are indeed the "best".  Such arguments are
a fallacy from the outset, since the truth behind "best" is
conditional and impermanent.

I do my best to present on this forum in the logic which best serves
the person I am addressing.  However, it is clear that I do not think
like you.  Perhaps I could be classified as "insane" in the same
manner that Pirsig classifies Phaedrus and Lila as insane.  In order
to keep this discussion I will continue to present my view in the best
way that I know.  But please be aware that I am coming from what
appears to be a different perspective than yours.  I try to
distinguish between rhetoric and truth in my response below.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:58 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> That's the core of our disagreement.  The fact that you do not see the beauty in Pirsig's choice of the word 'patterns' and think that his selection of the word is rather arbitrary and that "he could have used other terms".
>
> From the perspective of the MOQ the correct answer is the best one. Wouldn't you agree? I think so... So I think an explanation of the MOQ which has beauty in Pirsig's use of the word 'patterns' is better than one in which his selection of this word is arbitrary.  A beautiful idea has harmony with our experience and the MOQ is the most harmonious explanation of our general experience ever created.  It's for this reason that I don't think that the choice of the term 'patterns' is as arbitrary as you imply.

Yes, in MoQ there is the current "best".  This is temporary, and we
move on to "better".  Some say that string theory is the "best", but
this is only in that group who understands the beauty of such theory
of "what is", and it is not necessarily the "best" one for us.  Since
we are collaborating in the "betterfication" of MoQ, we choose methods
for the presentation of reality in its static incarnation that are
consistent within MoQ, and not physics.  We have the writings of
Pirsig as a starting point.  I am not sure if "arbitrary" is the
correct word, for rhetoric is chosen for a purpose.  But there is a
big difference between rhetoric and truth.  Rhetoric serves a purpose
within a presentation, but is never the Final Word.  Arguments come
and go, and should not be made static by claiming that there is only
one way to formulate an opinion.
>
> The reason there is beauty in the term 'patterns' is because that is how our intellect works. It inductively recognises patterns and designates these patterns names.  Pirsig has said as much in  Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:

This is another source of disagreement.  I would claim that our
intellect creates patterns.  Recognition is a term which implies the
conversion of the dynamic to the static.  We create the static through
understanding.  Patterns do not exist outside of our intellect in the
same way that static does not exist "out there".  The world is not
static, despite our attempts to make it so.
>
> "This morning I talked about hierarchies of thought...the system. Now I want to talk about methods of finding one's way through these hierarchies...logic.
>
> Two kinds of logic are used, inductive and deductive. Inductive inferences start with observations of the machine and arrive at general conclusions. For example, if the cycle goes over a bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over another bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over another bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over a long smooth stretch of road and there is no misfiring, and then goes over a fourth bump and the engine misfires again, one can logically conclude that the misfiring is caused by the bumps. That is induction: reasoning from particular experiences to general truths."
>
> Our minds inductively create hierarchies of thought through this logical detection of patterns.  That's it.  That's all there is to it.

I would change your sentence above to say: "Our minds inductively
create hierarchies of throught through the logical "creation" of
patterns.  I could easily say "that's all there is to it" as well.
However, there "IS" much more that just that.  Your rhetoric is a
vehicle, not any kind of finality.  This be stuck in such finality is
to reach a dead end in static quality creation.  I suppose that would
be the end of the discussion, but what a shame.

As Pirsig implies with the quote, "reasoning" is a form of rhetoric.
That is we are trying to convince, through logic, that what is
proposed is "correct".  Such logic does not always result in the
"best" answer.  For from further research it could be found that
another explanation for the misfiring is indeed better.  Science
marches on in the spirit of continual betterness, and all theories are
temporary and simply stepping stones on the path of understanding.
Induction is only as good as the experience gathered "so far", and
there is an endless stream of experience.
>
> If, on the other hand, we use these patterns we have created to deduce something not directly experienced, then that is a deductive inference...
>
> "Deductive inferences do the reverse. They start with general knowledge and predict a specific observation. For example, if, from reading the hierarchy of facts about the machine, the mechanic knows the horn of the cycle is powered exclusively by electricity from the battery, then he can logically infer that if the battery is dead the horn will not work. That is deduction."
>
> You might now be saying.. "but then if Pirsig's choice of the term 'patterns' has been selected because of its intellectual component, why do we call them inorganic, biological and social 'patterns'? "
>
> 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 recognition of this fact is built in right there in their name.

All I can suggest to you, David, is that you consider the difference
between "recognized" (as you use it) and "created" (as I use it).
They are vastly different ways of appreciating reality in its static
form.  One implies that there is a Truth that must be recognized, the
other implies that there is a Truth that is created.  I believe the
second of these is more consistent with MoQ as I understand it.  If
you read Lila with this in mind, perhaps you will come away with a
different opinion.

Thank you for the discussion.
>
Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 1:43 AM, 118 wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>> My guess is that it fit within the rhetoric of the chapter. I am sure he could have used other terms. The point is that it is just a word. "Things" do not really exist as patterns, that is a word he chose at the time. If one wants to say that patterns is the most enlightening term to use for presentation it should be explained. To me it sounds like mathematical formula. As such it leaves a lot out.
>>
>> Encapsulation of the understanding of a book to a single word seems (to me) to dismiss the message.
>>
>> Cheers, and thanks for the question.
>>
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2012, at 6:04 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com (mailto:davidjharding at gmail.com)> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Mark,
>> >
>> > As an aside to our ongoing conversation. I'd like to have another..
>> >
>> > Why do you think things are called 'patterns' in the MOQ?
>> >
>> > The values part is pretty self explanatory.
>> >
>> > But why did Pirsig use the term patterns?
>> >
>> > -David.
>> > 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.
>> 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.
> 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