[MD] MOQ Recursion

[Mary]

> [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?
> 



[Mary replies]
As I read Pirsig, a "pattern of values" of any level you pick is a latching
of Dynamic Quality into Static Quality.  It is one of many patterns which
support the same value.  I guess I don't understand your sentence, "So the
"inorganic level" is "pattern of value" of a new level above intellect".





> [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?
> 



[Mary replies]
Ask a rock to describe a fish.  Ask a fish to describe the Democratic Party.
Ask the Democratic Party to describe the theory of gravity - no, better, ask
the Republican Party to describe Darwin's theory of evolution.  As we know,
they are trying to superimpose their view upon science.  This is the real
problem.  The inadequacy Matt points to.  Recursion?  Not so much.  







> [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.
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html