[MD] Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ, let's not do that say some of us

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[DM]
I see patterns as pre existing language and conceptualisation in experience but not in any SOM terms... 

[Arlo]
And this I think is your problem, you seem to think that changing the 'terms' is all that is necessary to avoid "SOM".

After weeks of this all I can conclude is that you think "SOM" simply means using the words "subjects" and "objects", and that if you simply say "patterns" or "SQ" instead- without changing any of the underlying assumptions- then you're out of SOM.

"SOM" refers to the idea that, prior to experience, there is an independent subject/pattern/thing and an independent object/pattern/thing, and that experience is the coming together of the two pre-experiential patterns/things. This is precisely what you've been articulating, seeming to argue repeatedly that because you are using the word "patterns" it is "MOQ" and not "SOM". 

"SOM" is "pre-experiential existence", whether you call whatever is pre-experiential 'objects' or 'patterns' or 'SQ' does not change this. 

Whether you are right or not about the betterness of a metaphysics that grants pre-experiential existence to one that puts experience as primary, you can argue as you see fit. But I think until you understand the basic assumptions of what Pirsig means by both "SOM" and his MOQ, then you're fighting a battle without understanding the war.