[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[118]

Hi Marsha,
Thank you for your explanation, and I am in support of it.  It is
important not to forget the unity within Quality, and not get stuck in
static patterns which are used for the purposes of exchanging ideas
towards gaining meaning within this forum.

I believe the confusion to your statement may come from the adherence
to the presentation within the Metaphysics of Quality itself, which is
a constructed metaphysics.  It seems that Pirsig goes through great
pains to provide such a structure.  Indeed, using the tools of
rhetoric he creates a distinction between sq and DQ "for the purposes
of presentation" (quotes mine).  As such, he attempts to create an
understanding of his "view" of reality, which is indeed the purpose of
any philosophical metaphysics.

Within the bounds of such metaphysics, we attempt to broaden what
Pirsig has presented, in this forum, in order to make it more
understandable to many.  As such, the distinction between sq and DQ is
paramount towards fabricating MoQ, but indeed also relies on the
underlying unity of Quality as understood.

By way of example (analogy), we could strictly say that a house is
"not other than" the "need for shelter", and indeed it is not (in a
unifying sense).  We choose to form a distinction between the two for
the purposes of adding "color" to our interactions.  However, with the
lack of esoteric knowledge within the West, many would claim that such
two things are "fundamentally different".  This would be akin to
saying that sq and DQ are fundamentally different rather than a mode
for presentation of Quality.  Language is very important for adding
color to life, but this color cannot replace that which it is
coloring.

Thanks again for your paragraph below.

Cheers,
Mark

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 7:09 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Horse,
>
[On the statement "sq is not other than DQ"]
> I mean like static patterns are overlaid upon the undifferentiated flux.  Or as in the MoQ Textbook quote, "Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static)…"   I mean nothing more than this.
>
>
> Marsha
>

>
> 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