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

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[DMB to DM]
Apparently you don't really understand what SOM means because your intended denial is actually a confession.

[Arlo]
Yeah, this is rather sad that this continues to be a problem. Paul Turner just addressed this, so I think its worth repeating. Epistemologically (what Turner calls Context 1), Pirsig's philosophy contains NO pre-existing forms, substances, patterns. There are no pre-conceptual patterns sitting out there waiting for us to 'experience' them. He states, "From this perspective, our experience of the everyday world of distinguishable things is understood as ongoing Dynamic Quality within the context of different static patterns of knowledge, or, in ZMM terms, analogues[1], as opposed to experience of the pre-existing substance or a priori concepts presumed in various forms by subject-object based metaphysics."

Ontologically, however, (what Turner calls Context 2), the MOQ provides the pragmatic foundation for accepting an evolution of patterns (e.g., inorganic patterns pre-dated biological patterns). Turner writes, "These are the pragmatic high quality explanations of how the world operates in accordance with the assumption that values are the ubiquitous, empirical element of an evolving universe." DM's insistence on 'pre-conceptual patterns' reflects a view that removes the pragmatic nature of Pirsig's ontology and replaces it with a S/O realism. This is probably why he continues to oscillate between the only two possibilities he can see: that either patterns (objects) exist independently of subjects (Realism), or that 'its all in the mind' (Idealism). Rather than understanding Pirsig's way out of this false dichotomy, he simply conflates Pirsig's terminology into objectivism and then accuses you of subjectivism. 

For anyone who may have missed it, the link to Turner's paper is: http://www.robertpirsig.org/Two%20Contexts%20of%20the%20MOQ.htm