[MD] Drivel v MOQ

[david buchanan]

Marsha said to dmb:

I put together a definition of static patterns of value.  You can hardly accuse me of neglecting static patterns of value.

dmb says:
Oh, I know. You incoherently define static patterns as Dynamic and ever-changing. You don't define them so much as define them AWAY. That's why I can easily accuse you of neglecting the IMPORTANCE of static patterns, which is the focus of Pirsig's second book. The quote you continue to ignore and blatantly contradict says exactly that. Without static patterns, he says, DQ degenerates in chaos. There are enough Pirsig quotes on this point to fill several printed pages and all of them have been put right under your nose - with exactly zero effect. 

 
Robert Pirsig wrote:

"In the past Pheadrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that which does not change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life cannot exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality is to cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather that futilely trying to define what it is... Slowly at first, and then with increasing awareness that he was going in a right direction, Phaedrus' central attention turned away from any further explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned to the static patterns themselves" (Robert Pirsig in Lila).