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

[David Morey]

Dmb says: Pirsig is the one who says that static patterns ARE concepts. As it clearly says in the quote from McWatt, "Static patterns of quality" is Pirsig's term and he uses it to refer to any concept.


DM: fine,  what about patterns that are pre-conceptual,  they seem to be in experience but not the MOQ,  big weakness.

"Dynamic Quality is the term GIVEN BY PIRSIG to the CONTINUALLY CHANGING FLUX of immediate reality while static [patterns of] quality REFERS TO ANY CONCEPT abstracted from this flux." (McWatt)

DM: fine so DQ includes pre-conceptual patterns,  glad you get this at last.

DMB:See? "Static patterns" is Pirsig's term. That term refers to any concept. Static patterns and concepts are NOT two different things. They are two names for the same thing. 

DM: But patterns can be experienced without concepts, please empty your mind,  or observe a baby or an animal or have a think about what humans experienced before culture.

dmb says:
If you understand that patterns ARE concepts, as I do, then your claim that patterns are prior to conceptualization can be translated into the phrase "concepts prior to conceptualization". That's the nonsense that makes me cringe and makes you look so foolish. As you should be able to see from the textual evidence, static patterns ARE abstracted concepts. 

DM: If you understood that some patterns are concepts but all concepts are patterns as I do,  you would not have to make such silly claims. What is so abstract about experiencing both of your hands and seeing that they have something in common,  recognising a pattern, this is immediate direct experience, do you know what concepts mean,  did you read the Wiki entry? Do you think concepts precede human culture? Pirsig says:

Without Dynamic Quality the organism cannot grow. Without static quality the organism cannot last. Both are needed. 

DM: biological organisms including plants presumably need static qualities or patterns to maintain themselves,  do plants have patterns based on concepts? Seems Pirsig sees patterns without concepts here,  maybe the idea you are promoting is not his.

dmb says:
Yes, I realize that you see pattens and concepts as two different things. THAT is exactly where you've gone wrong. Your view is contradicted by the textual evidence. As McWatt so concisely explains (His Doctoral thesis is all about the MOQ and Pirsig himself spent years with McWatt slowly walking him through it), "static quality refers to any concept abstracted from" the flux of experience. As the evidence shows, your view is very confused version and is at odds with the actual MOQ....

DM: I accept all concepts are patterns,  but some patterns are pre-conceptual,  pre-cultural,  pre-language experiences, we jump from the hot stove,  reflex pattern,  where is the abstraction or concept?

David Morey said to dmb: pure experience  ..is surely full of shapes,  symmetries and patterns.

dmb says:
No, pure experience is full of patterns. According to the evidence, patterns are concepts and pure experience means "pre-conceptual" experience.

DM: You say white only includes white things,  black only includes black things,  I ask where shall we put all the coloured things that are pre-conceptual patterns or percepts,  in your black and white world you cannot answer me,  yet colours exist I am afraid.


DMB Pure experience is also known as unpatterned experience or dynamic experience, which means that it is NOT static and NOT patterned. To say that pure experience is full of patterns is to say that unpatterned experience is full of patterns.

DM: OK so let's include percepts and concepts in SQ,  sounds OK to me.

David Morey said to dmb:....what have you got against the word pattern,  concepts do not create patterns,

dmb says: I like the word "pattern" just fine and use it all the time, usually in conjunction with "static" BECAUSE "static pattern" is so central to the MOQ. What I'm doing here is defending the meaning assigned to "static patterns" by the author of the MOQ. I'm trying to show you what Pirsig is doing with that term, what he means by that term BECAUSE you are misusing it, converting it into its opposite. We can see how Pirsig uses that term (and how he uses the other terms) by looking at the textual evidence. If we ignore or invert the evidence, then we are no longer talking about the MOQ. Your misuse of the terms is so awful and wrong, that you are not talking about the MOQ. You're just talking about David Morey's opinions and those opinions, as I've tried to show, are so terribly confused that it's embarrassing and cringe-worthy. Here is some evidence that explains the actual meanings of these key terms...

DM: problem is I experience percepts and patterns prior to conceptualisation via culture and language,  if the MOQ is missing such experiences it has gone horribly wrong in your hands,  I doubt Pirsig thinks all patterns are conceptual,  although all concepts are a subset of patterns, can someone ask him. If he agrees with you,  then you can at least share the blame for this omission. As Pirsig says,  theory will always miss aspects of reality-experience,  you should thank me. 

"Dynamic Quality is the term given by Pirsig to the CONTINUALLY CHANGING FLUX of immediate reality while static quality refers to any concept abstracted from this flux." (McWatt)

DM: so if something is abstracted FROM DQ then its pre-abstracted experienced reality must be in DQ,  no change in white noise is there,  so the flux is not white noise,  something in the flux must be changing,  constantly changing patterns is a good name I think,  obviously the sea or sky is never ever the same,  they constantly change with fractal complexity,  yet we can abstract the concepts of sea and sky from the changing but finite experiences we have of the patterns off the shore and above the horizon.