[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[MarshaV]

Complain, complain…  Wind up Andre and you get primarily sighing, whining, impatience, complaining, name-dropping and reference to snot-buckets.



On Mar 21, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:

> Andre - I don't get your logic ?
> 
> The quote you snipped concerned Pirsig's words quoted by Dave about SQ
> patterns being discrete whilst being of the the same stuff. I was just
> prompted by Horse's attempt to elucidate Marsha's response to the
> original topic David's "rhetorical " question to Mark. Just joining up
> a few dots in the thread.
> 
> What Marsha says is actually true and supported David's point to Mark
> - as to why patterns are key to MoQ, and not just some random
> arbitrary choice of words for obscurantist reasons.
> 
> Why Marsha continually points these truths out at every turn - I'm at
> as much of a loss as you, I think Horse was trying to ask her - ie I
> agree that if that's where the argument ends, we've got nowhere.
> Marsha seem to prefer that state - and many of us - trying to find
> pragmatic conclusions to act upon in the messy real world - get wound
> up by that it seems.
> 
> Ian
> 
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 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


 
___