[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[Andre]

Mark to Horse:

Certainly we can make sense of our experience using DQ, for that is what MoQ is all about.

Andre:
"Using DQ"? No Mark, as soon as we try to 'make sense' we are already in sq. I wish you'd stop denigrating (belittling) sq patterns (see your response to dmb below). It literally makes no sense to do so. The MOQ is a static intellectual pattern of values.

Mark:
Nothing can be captured with words, they are just representations, as you know for this is how sq is defined.  Even SQ cannot be captured by "sq", for obvious reasons.

Andre:
What is 'SQ' Mark? And what can therefore not 'be captured by 'sq'. What are the 'obvious' reasons? I have no idea what you are getting at here. This must be one of your own inventions. I certainly have not come across this strange combination in any of Pirsig's writings or presentations.

Mark:
It is impossible to make DQ something that it is not, we all agree on this. If we leave DQ out of the exchange of ideas, we must not speak of DQ at all which would be to leave it out of MoQ.

Andre:
Then why this obsession with DQ? Within the MOQ, DQ is not meant to be a concept, nor even to be conceptualized as this is impossible. It is only a referring term...for obvious reasons. If you do define it (and you are free to do so in any conceivable way into infinity) it is already static.

Mark to dmb:
Let us not be bound by particular words. Otherwise we only exist in static quality, like a computer.

Andre:
As I said before Mark, we are those static patterns capable of apprehending Quality. Likening yourself to a computer when 'existing' in static quality says much about you and the way you experience yourself, so be careful to generalize this into an 'us'. A computer is an inorganic pattern of values incapable of apprehending Quality.

Why not buy Anthony's PhD? This will make a lot of things much clearer for you.