[MD] Why are things called patterns?

Sat Mar 10 10:35:29 PST 2012

Mark

It's my understanding that Lila alludes to DQ but does not define it as 
this is not possible.
SQ is how we make sense of our experience but cannot contain or describe 
DQ so any discussion of DQ is not DQ - it is ideas about DQ. There is a 
big difference.
So in an exchange of ideas DQ must always be left out.
I'm not implying that DQ is left out of the DQ/SQ split or of Quality or 
that we can't talk about it - just that it cannot be captured or defined 
within SQ.

Horse

On 10/03/2012 17:57, 118 wrote:
> Hi Horse,
> What do you mean by DQ is left out?  Left out of what?  Doesn't Lila
> describe DQ?  I see no reason not to include  it in the description of
> Quality.  Are you suggesting that the DQ/sq split is irrelevant? Of
> course DQ IS NOT what we present, but leaving out any mention of it
> seems to be contrary to MoQ, in my opinion.
>
> Certainly static patterns can be an objectification of our preferences
> (like metal filings are an objectification of a magnetic field, but
> does not "understanding" MoQ need to bring in DQ to enable such a
> thing?  If you prefer not to understand these things, then you would
> not present DQ as being "left out".  For that implies an understanding
> on your part of DQ, in my opinion.  Doesn't the moral presentation
> within MoQ bring forth understanding?  Is DQ left out of that?  What
> for you encompasses reasoning, or that which lies within the
> intellectual level?  The intellectual level is more than sq SOM since
> it also includes a dynamic component, in my opinion.  But I am happy
> to listen to arguments to the contrary, such as DQ being "left out" of
> the process.
>
>   Please explain so that I can understand what you are suggesting.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>> Hi David
>>
>> I don't often send through 'me too' posts but I thought I should do so on
>> this one.
>> You get to the core of the MoQ in a simple and easy to understand way.
>> (Static) Patterns (of value) are the means by which we make sense of (order)
>> our experience and, consequently, how we reason.
>> Only DQ is left out!
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Horse
>>
>> On 10/03/2012 00:58, David Harding 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.
>>>
>>> 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 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> -David.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> --
>>
>> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
>> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
>> — Frank Zappa
>>
>> 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
>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa