[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[MarshaV]

Greetings Dan,

I was using the starry night sky and the constellation as a metaphor.  If you I didn't present it clearly, please ask a followup question.


Marsha. 


On Mar 18, 2012, at 3:24 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> On Mar 18, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello everyone
>> 
>>> On Mar 18, 2012, at 5:16 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it."
>>>>   (Lila's Child)
>>>> 
>>>> "Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static)..."
>>>>   (MoQ Textbook)
>>>> 
>>>> "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.  Form is not other than emptiness; emptiness is not other than form."
>>>>    (Heart Sutra)
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality; Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> Seeing static patterns of quality as ever-changing
>>>>>>> and impermanent seems to go against Robert Pirsig's notion that it is
>>>>>>> best to find a balance between Dynamic Quality and static quality.
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> Dan, maybe this is RMP's notion of balance; to know sq/DQ as the same.
>> 
>> Dan:
>> "But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no
>> longer apply to Dynamic Quality." [RMP]
>> 
>> So if static quality and Dynamic Quality are known as the same, why
>> does Robert Pirsig say once definitions emerge they do not apply to
>> Dynamic Quality? If they were known as the same, wouldn't the opposite
>> be said to be true?
>> 
> 
> Marsha:
> I suppose humans have evolved to rely on static patterns for their survival.  
> 
> Why does Orion predominate the starry night sky?   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.  So what is it?  Is it starry night sky, or is it Orion?  Or is it both?  To me it is the pattern of Orion overlaid upon the starry night sky; like it is static pattern overlaid upon Dynamic Quality.  But that's why I said it is so difficult to talk about both sq and DQ together.  Somewhere else RMP says static quality is subordinate to DQ; that DQ is not subordinate to anything.
> 
> Only RMP can explain with certainty what he meant.  But I agree with him that the definition no longer applies to DQ.  
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> "You wanna change the way I make love... I wanna leave it alone..."
>> Leonard Cohen
>> 
>>