[MD] MOQ Recursion

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Arlo had asked]
If it is not an inorganic or biological or social or intellectual pattern of
value, what is it?

[Mary replies]
A pattern of values is exactly that - a pattern of values.

[Arlo]
Okay, but you aren't answering my question at all. Is the "inorganic level"
itself an inorganic, biological, social or intellectual "pattern of values"? 

Of course its a "pattern of values", but what kind is it? None of the above? If
not, then what kind?

[Mary]
That is the intellectual level way to describe something which really cannot be
properly described at all by the Intellectual Level.

[Arlo]
So then its a new level, above intellect, that "describes" what the "inorganic
level" itself is? 

[Mary]
The whole problem here is that the MoQ cannot be completely understood in terms
of the Intellectual Level.  The Intellectual Level is inadequate to describe
that of which it is but a part.

[Arlo]
So the "inorganic level" is "pattern of value" of a new level above intellect,
is that what you are saying? And what is inadequate about the way "intellect"
would describe the "inorganic level"? Do you think Pirsig's description of "the
inorganic level" is beyond intellectual description?

[Matt]
If that is right, what remains, then, are questions about "adequacy": what is
this inadequacy?  Arlo, I take it, doesn't see it. 

[Arlo]
Okay, then tell me why the "intellectual level" is "inadequate" to describe the
"inorganic level". I take it you agree that the "inorganic level" is a "pattern
of value" of some level above intellect? No? Yes?

[Matt]
What I'm guessing Arlo would agree with, and why the "recursion" bit in the
subject line has, I think, so far remained mysterious, is that once one
_doesn't_ understand intellectual-level behavior as, in ZMM's vocabulary, _the
dialectic_, as the usurper that tries to _encapsulate_ the Good, one has no
need to fear recursion, or in the philosophical problematic given to us by the
Ancients: fear of the infinite regress.

[Arlo]
Arlo has been quite clear in saying that ALL metaphysical descriptions of
reality powerful enough to be meaningful are INESCAPABLY recursive. Once you
say that the "inorganic level" is a pattern of value of some higher level, this
still leads to "regress" when the MOQ is used to analyze "the MOQ". Creating
another level is a gumdrop, it tastes good at first, but in the end has no
calories and is bad for you. 

But I don't want to skip ahead, right now I am still interested in hearing what
kind of "pattern of value" IS the "inorganic level", if it is NOT an inorganic,
biological, social or intellectual one.

[Matt]
Specifically to the Metaphysics of Quality, once one no longer fears recursion,
one will no longer think that the static/DQ distinction is "inadequate," which
under your understanding, I take it, it would have to be. 

[Arlo]
I am not sure if this is addressed to Mary or to me, I think Mary, but I am not
sure. But yes, "recursion", like "analogy", is something that greater minds
than my own have stopped "fearing" long ago. What's very sad is that some here
seem to think that "recursion" has something to do with "SOM" (even though
those who trumpet that acronym the most are those who understand it the least). 

I chose the "inorganic level" in this because its immediate threat level is
less, but the same question can basically be asked, "is the 'intellectual
level' an intellectual pattern of value?". 

That is, "is the 'set of intellectual patterns' itself an 'intellectual
pattern'?", and hence does it contain itself? And be very careful here, because
the "recursion" is NOT eliminated by adding another level.