[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[Andre]

Ian (in seeming defense of Marsha):

I think the "not" exclusive and "almost" independent are important qualifiers. The patterns are discrete, without simple one-way causal dependency - each has a life if its own - but they do comprise the same indefinable quality stuff.

Andre:
Yes Ian, and what you say is correct. We all know that. It is old hat. Thing is that some patterns have a tendency to persist longer (over time) than others. The pattern "mountain" persists longer than the pattern "car" or the pattern "dog" or any other (higher) social or intellectual pattern.

We all hope, I presume, that the intellectual pattern called "MOQ" will persist for a very long time. On the AHP tapes Pirsig said he wrote LILA to last a thousand years. But the indiscriminate application of static patterns being 'ever changing' hollows out (for want of a better expression) the application of the MOQ and , for that matter the implications of the MOQ.

It dismisses any suggestion, any attempt at discussion, any idea presented, as mere opinion, as having no basis of any validity or quality BECAUSE (so Marsha's argument/defense/dismissal goes) all is grounded in emptiness.

Well, we know all that. And yes, we will all be equal in the end. What I hear then is: so why bother? Why doing your best? Riding sq patterns in an attempt at betterness is utter folly. You are kidding yourself BECAUSE they are illusory. They don't really exist in the way you think they exist because before you blink they have changed again!

Because of this, Marsha fails to explain herself other than appealing to the ever changing, illusory nature (contradiction in terms...[is the illusion ever changing as well?])of what she experiences in her vipassana exploits. Her other contributions to this forum remain youtube, quotes about Buddhism and "I-answer-your-questions-with-my-questions".

I think dmb is right when he says that, adopting this stance you have no position on Pirsig's MOQ. In fact you have no position on anything! This is destructive. I think she is carrying this DQ part through to an extreme. As Pirsig says, DQ has no holding power on its own. You need to latch otherwise your gains will be lost, they will slide back to a lower level. Marsha denies the latching by denying rightful status of sq patterns. This is nihilistic. Doesn't 'get' you anywhere because there is nowhere you come from and nowhere to go.

In other words, all the advances and achievements (intellectual/consciousness) made mean absolutely nothing. Not realizing that sq advances have led, for example to an MOQ in the first place. Dismiss sq (they are only conventional and pragmatically useful) but keep on stressing that they are illusory and any meaningful discussion is out the window.

Is this what you defend and support as well?