[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[118]

Pirsig is presenting it as existing in DQ, just read his books.

I have no idea what you are driving at here.  What is your point?  Are
you stuck in the conceptual world and trying to prove something?  Or
are you just trying to be a pain in the neck again?

DQ exists outside of the conceptual world so how can you say it is not
chaos?  Please, go back to school and study some logic or critical
thinking.

Your one-liner baits are indeed tiresome.

Mark

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> Chaos is a conceptually constructed idea, it is not DQ.  - Marsha
>
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:51 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> dmb,
>> Yes, these things come to one "as awareness".  They are then presented
>> in the form of rhetoric which requires the use of words.  The words
>> are secondary; it is what they are presenting which is important.
>> Once we dogmatically stick to the need for a certain word, we are
>> stuck.  No 'betterness" can proceed from that, imo.  MoQ implies
>> freedom as I see it.  Let us not be bound by particular words.
>> Otherwise we only exist in static quality, like a computer.
>>
>> Clinging to DQ is presented in an objective way.  It is chaos, because
>> there is no thing to cling to.  DQ is not Some Thing.  Chaos implies
>> that any static understanding (sq) is completely demolished.  This is
>> what happened to Pirsig requiring serious treatment, in my humble
>> opinion.  Chaos means nothing to tie one's thoughts to.  Believe me,
>> it is chaotic.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:31 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From chapter 9 of LILA:
>>> "...Since this whole metaphysics had started with an attempt to explain Indian mysticism Phaedrus finally abandoned his classic-romantic split as a choice for a primary division of the MOQ. The division he finally settled on was one he didn't really choose in any deliberate way. It was more as if it chose him. He'd been reading Ruth Benedict's Patterns of Culture without any particular search in mind, when a relatively minor anecdote stopped him. It stayed with him for weeks. He couldn't get it out of his mind.     The anecdote was a case-history in which there was a conflict of morality. It concerned a Pueblo Indian who lived in Zuni, New Mexico, in the nineteenth century. Like a Zen koan (which also originally meant 'case-history') the anecdote didn't have any single right answer but rather a number of possible meanings that kept drawing Phaedrus deeper and deeper into the moral situation that was involved.”
>>>
>>> From the Wikipedia article on Ruth Benedict:
>>> "Benedict's 'Patterns of Culture' (1934) was translated into fourteen languages and was published in many editions as standard reading for anthropology courses in American universities for years.The essential idea in Patterns of Culture is, according to the foreword by Margaret Mead, "her view of human cultures as 'personality writ large.'" Each culture, Benedict explains, chooses from "the great arc of human potentialities" only a few characteristics which become the leading personality traits of the persons living in that culture. These traits comprise an interdependent constellation of aesthetics and values in each culture which together add up to a unique gestalt. For example she described the emphasis on restraint in Pueblo cultures of the American southwest, and the emphasis on abandon in the Native American cultures of the Great Plains. She used the Nietzschean opposites of "Apollonian" and "Dionysian" as the stimulus for her thought about these Native American cultures. She describes how in ancient Greece, the worshipers of Apollo emphasized order and calm in their celebrations. In contrast, the worshipers of Dionysus, the god of wine, emphasized wildness, abandon, letting go. And so it was among Native Americans. She described in detail the contrasts between rituals, beliefs, personal preferences amongst people of diverse cultures to show how each culture had a "personality" that was encouraged in each individual."
>>>
>>> Pirsig later in chapter 9 of LILA:
>>> “Sometimes you can see your own society's issues more clearly when they are put in an exotic context like that of the brujo in Zuni. That is a huge reward from the study of anthropology. As Phaedrus thought about this context again and again it became apparent there were two kinds of good and evil involved.” [The two kinds are static and Dynamic, of course.]
>>> “To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to define what it is. Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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