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

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Adrie]
Mr Turners document does not contain one single mistake,nor is there a flaw in the models.But however it is true that the evolving reality is at least partially to be awaited,ie,undefined in the future. there are no models that are perfect or contain the full monty of 100% reality mirroring.

[Arlo]
Who has said that any model is perfect or can 'mirror reality' completely? "All this is just an analogy". (ZMM) 

[Adrie]
Dm has a philosophikal point that is worth investigating, -pre-conceptual-,as if it should be interesting(it schould)! to abstract pre-conceptual out of the generalisations it is sheltering in
for too long.

[Arlo]
You're using terminology here that I just don't understand. What does "to abstract pre-conceptual out" mean? Is this a long way to just say "conceptualize"? Maybe you can phrase what you see as a point without getting all bungeed up in DM's objectivism. Can you, for example, articulate how you believe something can be "pre-conceptual" but not "pre-experiential"? Are you using "pre-conceptual" to mean "pre-intellectual"? Are you suggesting that pre-conceptual lies 'after' experience but 'before' conceptualization? If so, does this suggest that a space-time that has an independent reality in which 'things experience' in sequence? 

If we've already agreed that epistemologically there is nothing (not patterns, not objects, not ideas, not concepts, nothing) that precedes experience, but ontologically assuming and acting AS IF they did (the MOQ's evolutionary progression) is a high-quality idea, then what is it your investigation is seeking? It seems to me that, at best, its a inability to really accept the MOQ's epistemology (nothing precedes experience). At worst, it's trying to explain the ontological view through objectivism (for 'us' to experience, there has to first be 'something' for us to experience- which elevates time (and space) to a pre-experiential reality).

DM's problem is that he's trying to understand Pirsig's ideas through the lens of SOM. When he encounters a problem, he attributes it to a deficiency in the MOQ. He demands an answer, but also demands that answer be loyal to his objectivism. He seems to fully believe that simply by using Pirsig's terminology he's rejecting SOM. Its like someone saying they accept Heliocentrism but continue to use nothing but Geocentric mathematics. If you can do better, by all means, do. It would be a welcome change.