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

[david buchanan]

 Arlo said:
...Ontologically, however, the MOQ provides the pragmatic foundation for accepting an evolution of 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. 


dmb says:
Yes, Morey's view "removes the pragmatic nature of Pirsig's ontology and replaces it with a S/O realism".  I think that's exactly right and well said too. Ant tried to say the same thing to Harding:

"The MOQ is just a “working postulation” and I think this what the Two Contexts is designed to help illustrate."

Or, as Pirsig said in ZAMM,  "Of course it's an analogy. Everything is an analogy. But the dialecticians don't know that.".


"In our highly complex organic state we advanced organisms respond to our environment with an invention of many marvelous analogues. We invent earth and heavens, trees, stones and oceans, gods, music, arts, language, philosophy, engineering, civilization and science. We call these analogues reality. And they are reality. We mesmerize our children in the name of truth into knowing that they are reality. We throw anyone who does not accept these analogues into an insane asylum. But that which causes us to invent the analogues is Quality. Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it.""Now, to take that which has caused us to create the world, and include it within the world we have created, is clearly impossible. That is why Quality cannot be defined. If we do define it we are defining something less than Quality itself." 

"I remember this fragment more vividly than any of the others, possibly because it is the most important of all. When he wrote it he felt momentary fright and was about to strike out the words "All of it. Every last bit of it." Madness there. I think he saw it. But he couldn't see any logical reason to strike these words out and it was too late now for faintheartedness. He ignored his warning and let the words stand."

"Now it comes! Because Quality is the generator of the mythos. That's it. That's what he meant when he said, "Quality is the continuing stimulus which causes us to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it." Religion isn't invented by man. Men are invented by religion. Men invent responses to Quality, and among these responses is an understanding of what they themselves are. You know something and then the Quality stimulus hits and then you try to define the Quality stimulus, but to define it all you've got to work with is what you know. So your definition is made up of what you know. It's an analogue to what you already know. It has to be. It can't be anything else. And the mythos grows this way. By analogies to what is known before. The mythos is a building of analogues upon analogues upon analogues. These fill the collective consciousness of all communicating mankind. Every last bit of it. ...He knew that to understand Quality he would have to leave the mythos. That's why he felt that slippage. He knew something was about to happen."


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