[MD] Static patterns are ever-changing?!? i

[david buchanan]

dmb said to David Morey:

...Isn't it true that your "pre-conceptual SQ" is just the pre-existing objects of SOM? This is why I've criticized it as a version of SOM. If that's not true, how is your pre-conceptual static quality different from the objects of SOM?



David Morey replied:

...Here for me is where realism comes in, we build an understanding of SQ, this includes ideas about patterns and how they must exist prior to human experience and prior to human conceptions and when human beings are not around to experience them, patterns come and go, they continue to exist and undertake processes separate from human beings, realism is the only sensible way to make sense of our experience,..  [...] In MOQ we can recognise that patterns have a pre-existing life beyond human experience but this is a conclusion based on reasoning about our experience not a metaphysical assumption as it is in SOM. ...




dmb says:

Apparently you don't really understand what SOM means because your intended denial is actually a confession. You've shown that your "pre-conceptual SQ" is no different from the pre-existing objects of SOM. You're talking about patterns as something that "must exist prior to human experience and prior to human conceptions". That's exactly what we mean by "pre-existing objects" and that is exactly what static patterns are NOT. The MOQ rejects these pre-existing objects and replaces them with static patterns. You are literally offering the problem as an alternative to the solution.
No wonder you don't appreciate my criticisms of Marsha. Wow.


dmb said:

Plus, since the MOQ describes DQ as pre-conceptual experience and it describes sq as derived concepts, your phrase would mean "pre-conceptual concepts". To say that this phrase is contradictory or incoherent is not a personal attack on you. It is simply of point of logic and the proper use of terms. ...



David Morey replied:

OK, I have no real objection to making the cut this way, we could say what we mean by SQ is the conceptual understanding and description of all patterns, but in that case why call it quality? Why not just call it conceptual analysis and description of patterns? But you seem to be only recognising patterns when they have been conceived, where does this leave patterns before language and conceptions, do animals and babies not recognise patterns or identify sameness?


dmb says:

Apparently you did not understand that point of logic or the problem of misusing Pirsig's terms because your further comments continue to be contradictory in the same way. And you continue to treat patterns as pre-existing things instead of conceptualizations. We don't conceptualize patterns, you see, because THEY ARE CONCEPTS. If you mean to talk about pre-existing objects, do not call them static patterns because, again, that's exactly what Pirsig is REPLACING with that term. You see? No, I imagine you don't. I honestly don't know how to get you past this hurdle and nothing I say will make any sense to you until you do get past it. 

Sigh.

Your proposal, in effect, asks us to reject the MOQ in favor of SOM. That's a pretty epic mistake.