[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[118]

Hi David,

My point was that even if it is the best, it is not the last.  We must
also question what makes it the best, which is why I provide input
into the "pattern approach".  This approach is fully in line with
physics, that describes everything with equations.  Equations are
patterns.  However, there seems to be something missing out of
physics, and that is the realization that the equations are not the
reality.  This is why I state that static patterns are not a reality.
In fact, the static pattern approach leaves even more out than the
physics approach.  Both are deterministic, but the static pattern
approach does not try to give any more body to that sort of reality,
except to say "that's the way it is, deal with it"



On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> I agree with all that you have written. Truth is indeed temporary.
>
> But until a better truth comes along it is all we have.  In fact, the best truth is the best thing we have.  Good is a noun rather than an adjective. That is why Pirsig makes this claim.  Until something better comes along...  Good is a noun.
>
> If a 747 plane is crashing, and the only pilot alive is one who has flown fighter planes, then it's right to go with the one who has flown fighter planes over any other passenger.  Temporarily that fighter pilot is the best one we have so it's right to go with him.  It's true he's the best pilot.

Yes, that is true.
>
> In the same way we're here discussing what the best description of the MOQ is. Not the be all and end all description. But the best one we have right now.  Yes this will ad infinitum get replaced by something better. But without the static latch of saying what is good and what is not good, we'd never be able to communicate with each other.   This is why Pirsig called them patterns.  Because without our intellects which 'create' these static patterns of good, things would just be chaotic and unintelligible.

I would disagree that it is the best one for me.  I have presented
many posts on this subject, unfortunately I grow tired of presenting
alternatives and denying that the concept of static patterns does
anything at all for us.  What sort of meaningful life do you get out
of the pattern approach?

Pirsig calls them patterns because it is the vernacular of the day.
He tried to write a book that was understandable.  He certainly does
not see things as patterns, of that I am most sure.  It takes a
reading of both books with that in mind to realize such a thing.

All I can suggest is that you see words for what they are.  This is
not condescending, it is simply the method I took over 30 years ago.
Words are trivial.  They are just modes for interaction.  It is
important to think that we do not think in words, otherwise we are
left with the Wittgenstein paradox.  Most people already realize this,
it is the academics who are lost in a world of words.  Most of what we
experience is wordless.  Just pay attention to every moment in a day.
Try to stay out of that "focussed attention".  Treat your brain as if
it were some foreign person giving you instructions.  You are not your
thoughts, your thoughts happen to you.  There is no way to control
them.

Cheers,
Mark
>
> -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