[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[Horse]

Hi Marsha

To return to what you said yesterday.

The problem, as I see it, is that if you don't understand what you mean 
or how something works, when you express an opinion about it then it's 
going to be very difficult for others to understand. Repeating the same 
doesn't make it any clearer.
Wouldn't it be better to try and say what you mean in a different way?
And if we're talking about the MoQ then there are 2 books by Pirsig that 
discuss and describe the relationship between DQ and SQ.

Pirsig talks about the division of Quality into 2 components - DQ and SQ.
So Quality is fundamental - and everything progresses from there. That's 
why I said that Quality is reality and not DQ as DQ is that part of 
Quality/reality that is not SQ. He seems to go to great lengths in Lila 
describing SQ, the levels etc. so it's reasonable to assume that Pirsig 
sees SQ as an important part of his metaphysics.

SQ is then definable and describable - and Pirsig further splits SQ into 
4 discrete sets of patterns.
He generally states that DQ is undefinable and equates DQ with experience.

"In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided 
into four systems:
inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns and 
intellectual patterns. They are
exhaustive. That’s all there are. If you construct an encyclopaedia of 
four topics—Inorganic,
Biological, Social and Intellectual—nothing is left out. No “thing,” 
that is. Only Dynamic
Quality, which cannot be described in any encyclopaedia, is absent."
(Lila)

Is there anything in the above that you disagree with?

Cheers

Horse


On 18/03/2012 19:57, MarshaV wrote:
> Thanks, Horse,
>
> I've never meant to be confusing or confrontational.  The MoQ is very important to me too.
>
> Marsha


On 18/03/2012 17:53, MarshaV wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>> Hi Marsha
>>
>> OK - let's stick with DQ for the moment.
>> Could you elaborate as to how this overlaying is accomplished as it seems odd, to me, that you're taking SQ which is defined (or at least definable) and overlaying it onto the undefinable, DQ.
> Don't know how.   Possibly patterns of habit.  It reminds me that I told my husband not to point out or name the constellations, but of course he did.  He showed me Orion, and now whenever I look into the starry night sky, the first thing I see is Orion.  It stand out like a neon sign.  How does this happen?  I don't know, but it does.
>
>> And, isn't Quality (or Value) the fundamental state of reality and DQ/SQ are required components of Quality?
> I have no idea what you are saying.  I have it that the fundamental nature of reality is DQ, and static patterns are overlaid upon DQ.  Static patterns being useful conventions.  Why this process evolved, I do not know with any certainty.  How this happens?  How can I say since I am an aspect of the process?
>
>
>> That's how I understand it anyway.
> And you know how I understand it.
>
>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa