[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[Andre]

Marsha to Dan:

Those few stars are no longer starry night sky; they are Orion.  That pattern know as Orion doesn't really exist; it's just starry night sky up there, but yet the pattern of stars known as Orion has taken on an independent existence.

Andre:
So long as you realize that this occurs only in YOUR head Marsha. Certainly not mine! Is this still related to your conviction that the intellectual level is SOM??!!!

Marsha to Horse:
I've never meant to be confusing or confrontational.

Andre:
Yet you have a knack of doing just that Marsha. When you say: "I have it that the fundamental nature of reality is DQ, and static patterns are overlaid upon DQ." what are you saying? You have been using this foundational emptiness of sq patterns consistently now for years, and you have been using that in a dismissive manner. You continue saying that sq patterns are 'useful conventions'. Again, what are you saying here? Are they not meaningful? You give (me)the impression that they are useful but don't really matter (in the same way as you are saying that words, words, words are meaningless as well).

You answer Horse's query with: "No I stated it as I meant it.  Static quality patterns are overlaid onto Dynamic Quality, or the undifferentiated flux, or the indeterminate.  Period!  End of story!  DQ is the fundamental state of reality."

BUT now you are saying something else again! You are NOT ANSWERING Horse's query. Horse did not ask you about what is overlaid with what. He told you "this gives me the impression that you believe that they are one and the same" [i.e.DQ/sq]

And when really pressed for an answer you complete the slithering process (sorry to bring it up again) by saying: "How can I say since I am an aspect of the process"!!!!!

If you really think THAT Marsha, and you make an EXCUSE of it, why bother being here on this forum discussing Pirsig's MOQ? You emphatically confess to Horse that "The MoQ is very important to me too".

I am convinced it is YOUR MOQ you find important and not Pirsig's. Otherwise you would respond differently.

I will stick to my point and that is that you cannot confuse DQ with sq. When you say: "Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality; Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality." you are arguing from a Dynamic point of view. Once again let me remind you that the MOQ is a STATIC intellectual pattern of value. The Quality/DQ component is NOT A PART OF THAT. It is ridiculous to continually bring this up when discussing the MOQ.

As Pirsig says: "It's important to keep all 'concepts' out of Dynamic Quality". And you keep on saying that DQ=sq. It is plain wrong and I should remind you also that Pirsig argues that STATIC PATTERNS DO NOT CHANGE BY THEMSELVES. Your damaged/torn piece of skin will do everything necessary to stabilize as skin. It will not, of itself change into something else. The pattern IS 'skin'.

Problem is that I think you are bringing this into your responses continually because, for you the MOQ IS Experience (same as Bodvar).

So there are four arguments here that you (continually) use and which are CONTRARY to Pirsig's MOQ:
1) the intellectual level = SOM
2) DQ=sq
3) sq is 'everchanging...'
4) The MOQ=Experience.

Are you disputing these four points? Am I wrong in this assessment? If I am wrong can you give all of us a very clear argument of refutation? If I am right what are you doing here?

Sorry Horse but I could not present it in any nicer way. You see, I care about Pirsig's MOQ.