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

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[dmb]
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.".

[Arlo]
Its frustrating, as I'm sure you know, to see this same mistake come up over and over. I might disagree with Paul on some of his points (minimal, I think), but overall his paper does a great job trying to explain this. And yet, here we are, a few months later back in the same mess again. Ontologically, pragmatically, assuming and acting AS IF patterns precede experience is a high-quality IDEA. But epistemologically we are aware that they DO NOT. 

Instead DM just keeps beating the drums of objectivism/realism, as if replacing the word 'objects' with 'patterns' is all that's required, and somewhat funny accusations of 'witchcraft' for those who deny his oxymoronic term 'pre-conceptual patterns' (funny, to me, because I have a personal fondness for witchy women).

Anyway, that does it for me today.