[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[Case]

[Case]
I would like to suggest once again that the shape of the MoQ is fractal. It
is infinite complexity of form and shape across scale. It is the tension
between flying off to infinity and annihilation.

[Arlo]
I have no problem accepting a fractal metaphor for the MOQ. I like the idea
that "pattern focus" can bring shapes into focus (on one level), but as one
gets closer one finds that the "pattern" emerges from the interplay of
parts, each themselves capable of being brought into focus. The only thing I
am unsure of is how to frame (in this metaphor) the emergent "leaps" when a
level of complexity ceases to be just an increase in complexity and becomes
a whole new thing.

[Case]
Good question, like is an Oak, and acorn, a sapling, a tree, a table, a
bonfire? Is a robin more of a bird than a chicken?

SA mentions evolution. During early 70's Science magazine has an ape on the
cover who was a hybrid between an siamang and a gibbon. There are two
species of the lesser apes that are actually separate genuses. I am not of
fan of taking taxonomy seriously. Ian mentions the problems with Pirsig's
levels 3 and 4. I am not convinced there is a rigid distinction between 1
and 2. After all carbon molecules are the building blocks of life and
organic chemistry in not part of the biological level. I would add that the
focus in the MoQ discussions on the nature of the individual have detracted
from an understanding of the intellectual level as growing out of the social
level.