[MD] MOQ Recursion

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Matt to Marsha]
Okay, granted "once the defining and analysis has started the 'MoQ'  has
dropped into the Intellectual Level."

[Arlo]
I don't grant this, Matt, precisely because the "Metaphysics of Quality" IS
"defining and analysis" of Quality. I really think Marsha is confusing the
undefinable (Quality) with Pirsig's attempt to analyze it (the Metaphysics of
Quality).

How can one possibly say the "Metaphysics of Quality" precedes "defining and
analysis"??? It exists due to the very act of "defining and analysis"
undertaking by Pirsig!

[Matt]
Then: Where was it before?  What is this place that the MoQ exists and falls
from?

[Arlo]
Marsha will just repeat herself, as she's been doing, but here I am beginning
to see the issue may be in the objectification of the acronym (MOQ). If we
spell it out, the question almost sounds silly.

Where was it before? What is this place that the Metaphysics of Quality exists
and falls from?

[Matt to Marsha]
You're defining "labeling" as different than "definition," which is fair
enough, but we just need to know how and in what respects. For you've also
equated "labeling" with "representing," "denoting," and "signifying."  And for
people like myself who are used to understanding "signification" as something
that can only be understood as contextualized in a pattern, your pattern of
labels and denotations seem counterintuitive. 

[Arlo]
Yes. And, this still begets the question as to what "labels" are. If a "label"
is not DQ nor SQ, then what is it. If it is SQ, a pattern of value, then what
type of pattern of value is it (I-B-S-I)?

This really seems to propose a third metaphysical element, the Quality is
DQ+SQ+"labels".