[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[118]

Hi Andre,

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark to Andre:
> Thanks for the support.
>
> Andre:
> I am not supporting your view of Pirsig's MOQ. That should be clear.

What is clear to me is that often we are saying the same thing.  What
may not be clear is the manner in which I support you.  Examples
follow below.
>
> Mark:
> We get verses from the book as if they were religious dogma. This not where
> Pirsig wanted this to go.
>
> Andre:
> If you view Pirsig's MOQ as some sort of dogma then that is your
> interpretation. Interpreting it as such gives me the idea that you
> experience Pirsig's MOQ as some sort of straight-jacket, some sort of
> prison. My suggestion is that he is not doing that.
> "Kant's metaphysics thrilled Phaedrus at first, but later it dragged and he
> didn't know exactly why. He thought about it and decided that maybe it was
> the Oriental experience. He had had the feeling of escape from a prison of
> intellect, and now this was just more of the prison again"(ZMM, p 129)

The point is that I do NOT see Pirsig's MoQ as some kind of dogma.
This is exactly what I am trying to caution against.  The topic of
this thread is a good example.  That is, it is not necessary to claim
that the "static patterns of Value" must be the manner in which we
view reality.  Surely you can appreciate this, and I am sure that you
do.  I wish for Pirsig's chosen words NOT to form a straight jacket of
any kind.  However, some will support the argument for this
terminology as being essential, by placing quotes from Lila as proof.
So we are saying exactly the same thing here.  At one point Pirsig
writes to kill intellectual patterns.  The "static patterns of Value"
would be one such thing to "kill".  They are presented as rhetoric to
help explain Pirsig's vision.  Such rhetoric can be useful, but can
also be destructive if one then assumes that things ARE "static
patterns of Value", because they are NOT.
>
> And you think Pirsig's creation of the MOQ is more of another prison?

Sometimes it would seem that there is a following of the exact words
written within both ZAMM and Lila as if the words are important.  For
those well intentioned members of the forum there is the possibility
that a prison could be formed in the same way that the bible forms a
prison for many.

But to answer your question, I do NOT think that Pirsig's creation is
a prison, nor should it become such.  This is what Pirsig cautions
against.  The more ways in which MoQ can be presented, the better.  It
does not hinge on specific words. Before the writing of Lila, I had
formed a "metaphysics of Quality" as well, based on my experiences in
the '70's.  I read Lila with this in mind and find that it agrees with
my own formulation.  I would just use different examples.
>
> Mark:
> Please skip my well intentioned posts if they annoy you. I wish only to
> discuss this with those willing to bring in the positive.
>
> Andre:
> I have no doubt that your posts are 'well intentioned', and attempt to bring
> in 'the positive'. Problem I have is that they do not appear to reflect
> Pirsig's MOQ. Rather they reflect 'a book of your awareness'(as you put it
> in a post to Horse). If your awareness and Pirsig's MOQ differ fundamentally
> or significantly everyone on this Discuss has the right to point that out to
> you. We are here discussing Pirsig's MOQ. Not your awareness.

I would have to ask for specifics as to why they do not appear to
reflect Pirsig's MoQ.  If I can understand your concern here, I would
be happy to provide you with the verbiage which may be more appealing
to you.  It would appear that some in this Discuss do differ
fundamentally from what Pirsig is presenting.  I do not belong to that
group.  When I receive no argument to the contrary, I assume that I am
on the right track.  What you present in your response is a statement
that I am not discussing Pirsig's MoQ.  However, I could say the same
about you and not support it with any reason.  Is there any Quality in
that?  How can I find what you present in this post compelling in any
way.  Is it your word against mine?
>
> If you experience this 'pointing out' as being dogmatic then I suggest you
> misinterpret not only that intention but also the MOQ. If you experience the
> MOQ as an intellectual prison then that is a reflection of you. It is your
> projection. And no wonder: if you are convinced that existing in static
> quality patterns is no different to existing as a computer, then you are
> missing by misinterpreting  something. Something very fundamental.

Please tell me how I am misinterpreting MoQ, for it seems to me that I
have an interpretation similar to yours.  Why do you feel that my
computer analogy is incorrect?  I would be happy to clarify this in
response to such comments.  Perhaps I should have chosen an
alternative analogy which is easier to understand.  Unfortunately I
have no idea what you will understand and what you will not.

There is often a tendency in the forum to claim that somebody is
"incorrect" which is presented simply as a form of character
assassination.  This assassination is presented without any reasons.
This post of yours is a good example.  If you show me where I have
gotten off the MoQ path, I can certainly address such concerns.  I can
easily change my opinion based on rhetoric from you, but I need some
reason.  Telling me that I am wrong without saying why has no value in
the spirit of MoQ.  It would be like saying that Phaedrus is insane
and not explaining what is meant by that.  We can all get together and
chant "Phaedrus is insane, Phaedrus is insane", but this would be
silly.

So before you make such statements, how about you choose something
which I have presented and explain your concerns?  If you sound
reasonable I am happy to change such a view.  At this point you just
seem like a bouncer outside a night club choosing who can enter and
who cannot based on what they are wearing.

I encourage you to participate in the expansion of MoQ outside of the
words presented by Pirsig.  Bring in your own analogies.  If you
understand MoQ (which I can only assume that you do) this should not
be hard

Best regards,
Mark

> 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