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

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[DM]
nothing precedes experience as our starting point,  but we do find pre-conceptual patterns in experience

[Arlo]
Yeah, its incoherence like this I find continually disheartening. As I said, using Turner's analysis, "nothing precedes experience" is the MOQ's epistemology. The second part, that you confuse with Realism, is a pragmatic ontology that says, simply, that despite this awareness that nothing precedes experience, acting AS IF patterns followed an evolutionary trajectory is a high-quality explanation that PRAGMATICALLY accepts "the world does exist outside of the human imagination, inorganic and biological patterns predate the existence of humans, gravitation existed before Newton and evolution before Darwin". 

Turner quotes Pirsig to explain this: "The [second context of the] MOQ does not deny the traditional scientific view of reality as composed of material substance and independent of us. It says it is an extremely high quality idea. We should follow it whenever it is practical to do so. But the [first context of the] MOQ, like philosophic idealism, says this scientific view of reality is still an idea." (Pirsig, LILA'S CHILD)

You have simply conflated the MOQ's pragmatic ontology into objectivism, and accuse those who deny 'realism' (objectivism) of subjectivism (and now witchcraft!). 

You're blindness to this, going so far as to suggest 'witchcraft' is the only alternative to 'Realism' (objects exist independently of subjects), reveals a complete lack of understanding of this, a very fundamental, aspect to Pirsig's philosophy. The reason why you feel everyone who deals with you is 'obsessed' with SOM, is that everyone understands your conflations to be nothing more than that. You can scream and rage and complain all you want, it won't change this.

As if he was writing directly to you, Turner states, "Related to this is the debate about whether static patterns are “real” or “merely conceptual.” Sound familiar? Turner continues, "Again, both positions are supported by one of the two contexts so a “final answer” cannot be given.  Rather, one must select the context which is of most value for the current purpose.  In most cases, with respect to going about daily life, it is most valuable to ASSUME [emphasis- Arlo], as per context (2), that static patterns, and the things contained within them, are real (and follow the laws and rules appropriate to the level in which they reside)."

Not realism. Not witchcraft. A ontologically-pragamtic, valuable assumption held against an epistemological understanding that there are NO pre-experiential, pre-conceptual, pre-anything patterns or objects. 

To pair these views together with Pirsig's words: Although epistemologically "the world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination" (ZMM), "it is an extremely high quality idea... [to ontologically] follow whenever it is practical to do so" (LILA'S CHILD)

Sadly, I do think your stuckness in objectivism-realism (and the corresponding reduction of everything else to subjectivism-idealism-witchcraft) evidences one of the biggest obstacles to Pirsig's philosophy for many newcomers- conceptually moving beyond that S/O dichotomy. I've seen this many times over the years, rather than changing lenses people simply adopt Pirsig's words but continue to deploy the same lens.

You can read Turner's paper, maybe it will help you understand your mistake. Maybe it won't. But good luck.

Paul - sorry to practically repost your entire paper here in two posts.