[MD] Static Patterns Rock!

[David Morey]

Waver,  empiricism, interpretation all way down to DQ,  meta of real qualities,

dmb said:
But I notice that you're still wanting to say that there are "patterns" in the DQ part of Pirsig's equation. How many times do I have to point out that this is a contradictory misuse of the very terms under discussion. Yes, the quote does say that a normal and attentive baby should "notice differences and then correlations between the differences and then repetitive patterns of the correlations," but this is said in the context of explaining how static patterns are derived from DQ. Static patterns are not to be confused with the flow of perceptions, feelings, and sensations from which they are derived. 

DM replies: So you believe babies and animals presumably use concepts,  that all patterns are inseparable from concepts,  but you seem to struggle to say so. I understand exactly what you are saying,  it is very simple, my point is that it is too simple to describe the reality of experience I argue,  nor do you seem to recognise the implications of the view you support,  instead of confirming these you pointlessly repeat yourself,  you seem to think if only I could understand you I would agree with you,  well get used to it,  I understand you all too well but disagree with you, philosophical disagreement works this way you know. So I will keep setting out my reasons for disagreement unless you can genuinely answer my questions and deal with my issues and concerns. I believe we experience percepts and these are patterned,  if the MOQ has no place for these then it has a gap,  or seeing percepts as patterned is wrong, you need to explain why percepts do not exhibit patterned behaviour not say percepts are DQ and DQ is not patterned,  can you not see that proves nothing?

DMB said: "Quality is shapeless, formless, indescribable. To see shapes and forms is to intellectualize. Quality is independent of any such shapes and forms. The names, the shapes and forms we give Quality depend only partly on the Quality. They also depend partly on the a priori images we have accumulated in our memory. We constantly seek to find, in the Quality event, analogues to our previous experiences. If we didn't we'd be unable to act. We build up our language in terms of these analogues."

DM replies:  Fine Pirsig wants us to see the dominance of SQ in experience, culture and concepts fill and shape and interpret DQ to give us SQ, but does he go too far, what about animals and babies,  they experience patterns,  they recognise them,  but do they "intellectualise"? Is this going too far or does it fail to make a distinction between cultured adults and other organisms? Sure memory or reflex patterns or the brain are involved but that does not imply intellect. Do you nit think there is a gap or problem,  where we can improve on Pirsig's statements,  as he clearly moves on quickly to patterns as dominant in culture and language but is there nothing before culture or do you really want to say there us intellect before culture? You could say there is some sort of proto-intelligence is all pattern recognition,  but even amoeba head towards the betterness of their food. Now more interpretatative analysis of this text,  Pirsig seems to waver,  he does not say all shape and pattern comes from intellect,  he does not say quality provides nothing to SQ,  he says it depends 'only partly' on the quality,  so something is there before SQ,  what is it,  percepts I suggest,  the first rung of experienced pattern the seed for full blown SQ. For any sort of worthwhile realism we need percepts as pre-conceptual,  otherwise it is interpretation all the way down to DQ,  how does that differ from Rorty or the worst aspects of post-modernism? Science is able to let the data decide, a genuine empiricism,   this relies on pre-conceptualised percepts, these can be quantified and measured,  and agreement on these is much easier to reach,  is the stove hot? Yes we can easily agree,  bring in full blown SQ and concepts and agreement is much harder, is the budget deficit too big,  very problematic. We need to see the difference here between the humanities and sciences, where science deals with percepts it has an advantage over the human sciences,  but this is nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity as SOM misconceives this. We share experiences,  there are patterns to see in experience,  one person can point them out to another,  there can be more than one,  take a gestalt image,  the two patterns can be seen,  but there is not an infinite number of gestalt images/patterns in the picture, that would be more like an ink blot where any image can be projected ion a real flux,  DQ is not an ink blot flux,  it is more like an ink blot flux with gestalt images coming and going as islands of overlapping patterns. Now seeing percepts in experience as full of pattern is going beyond what Pirsig seems to say in places,  I understand you feel no need to add this to the MOQ,  but I see a gap,  a host of problems. Interpretation all the way down seems to take the quality out of MOQ,  and makes the MOQ an idealist,  anti-realist or post-modern philosophy. Bad idea I think in this scientific and naturalistic age unless you want to be left on the margins. Happy to give a new name to my proposal,  Metaphysics of Real Qualities is fine for me. Any takers? I think babies,  animals and experience itself is on my side,  what does Pirsig think of my proposal any response? Now if this is a bad idea I'd love to hear why,  but I am not listening to any repeats about SQ is all patterned/conceptual,  DQ is all unpatterned/pre-conceptual,  anyone can see that is entirely missing the point,  we only have no where to put pre-conceptual patterns because we are making the mistake of thinking all patterns require concepts to be experienced,  experience says that is not true,  so the DQ/SQ divide needs a better definition,  starting with dropping either concepts or patterns as the right cleaver for the divide, drop either, I have no really strong preference on which one should go,  making the divide pivot on one term is simpler and clearer, and surely pattern and concept  are different ideas that should remain separate and not be artificially welded together.

"People fail to grasp their own incompetence, precisely because they are so incompetent. And since, overcoming their incompetence would first require the ability to distinguish competence form incompetence people get stuck in a vicious cycle."

DM replies: yes,  look in the mirror mate.

"The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."

DM replies: well look who thinks he is the master and superior,  I'll let others judge whether or not you are a bit deluded mate.