[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[Case]

[SA]
Wouldn't the established distinctions, already
noticed or newly discovered, on each level be static,
and what you are noticing Case, this "I am not
convinced there is a rigid distinction between 1 and
2."  As you also mention, problems between 3 and 4. 
This allows 'room', 'space', freedom to be more exact,
for each level.  The moral codes are between each
level and Pirsig defines these moral codes as follows:
 "What was emerging was that the static patterns that
hold one level of organization together are often the
same patterns that another level of organization must
fight to maintain its own existence. Morality is not a
simple set of rules. It's a very complex struggle of
conflicting patterns of values." (Lila; Ch. 13)  Thus,
the non-distinction that your finding is this,
"...very complex struggle..."  This is where I see
dynamic morality, that original split, being an event
with static quality, thus, all levels, on all levels,
and between all levels.  This is how the static levels
don't turn dead.

[Case]
I regard all talk of level as metaphorical. Sometimes things look this was
sometimes they look that way. The value of metaphors is they provide a
structure for looking. But if the light changes or we change our perspective
things look differently. I assume everyone know the story of the blind men
and the elephant. It is a parable about metaphors. We are able to make
gestalt shifts where this illusion of reality transforms itself all at once
into something completely different.

The problem with taxonomy is that too often it implies rigidity. Things are
this way. This gets lumped here and that gets lumped there. Taxonomies of
ideas or abstractions are especially troublesome since they is nothing for
them to conform to. Freud is a example of abstract taxonomy run amok.