[MD] MOQ Recursion

[skutvik at online.no]

Arlo. All!, 

I should have known better than getting involved in this silly exchange  

5 Aug.

[Arlo]
> Oh gee. Duh. So when I ask what kind of "pattern of value" it is, and
> the reply is "its a pattern of values", you think that is an answer?

I did not say that it (the MOQ) is a pattern of value, I'd say it is the 
"Metaphysics of Value". OK? 
 
> What if I asked, "according to the MOQ, what kind of pattern of value
> is a rock?", and Mary answered "its a pattern of values", you think
> that has explanatory power?

It sounds as if you ask a MOQ-based question , but yours is a quasi-
position, you are solidly inside the intellectual level and this requires a 
metaphysical lecture: First of the all the static levels do not recognize 
the Q context.  At the social level (when it was leading edge) a person 
imbued with God-given power could hit a rock with his stick and water 
would come forth, i.e. "rock" wasn't matter at that level. Only with the 
intellectual level did "rock" become "inorganic matter" and  now you 
hopefully see the fatal flaw in confusing the 4th. intellectual level's 
"matter" with MOQ's 1st. level's patterns. Q-intellect is just what the 
MOQ says the value of the subject/object (mind/matter) distinction. 

All this is a small example of MOQ's explanatory power and I think it 
yields megatons. While you quasi-moqers insist on the MOQ being an 
intellectual pattern which robs it of all power. Mary's answer was 
adequate from the MOQ seen, but for those with no intention of 
leaving the static intellectual level  ....alas.     

[Bo]
> The inorganic level is just what it says: a level. What kind of
> nonsense is this? 
 
[Arlo]
> So the "levels" are NOT patterns of value at all? You are saying that,
> according to the MOQ, there is DQ/SQ/Levels?

The levels are MOQ's classification of static quality. DQ/SQ level? 

[Bo]
> The MOQ is out of SOM - of intellect 
 
[Arlo]
> So the "levels" are patterns of value of a new, higher, level above
> intellect?

Only if you see intellect in its old role as a mental idea-compartment, 
but Q-intellect - along with all levels - is the result of an in-out 
metaphysical turn that leaves us (like the bugs in the sock) with the 
same immediate environment, yet in a new reality  .... for those who 
want to see it. The MOQ isn't above its levels, it contains the levels. 

[Bo]
> ...it's just the "embers" of intellect to ask like Arlo does what the
> various levels' or patterns' "nature" is. 
 
[Arlo]
> Yeah, I know, the best way to avoid a question is to claim "its SOM!".
> The Great Ostrich move, I get it

Good

[Bo]
> The MOQ is the DQ/SQ metaphysics. Full stop!  
 
[Arlo]
> So the MOQ is not a "pattern of value" at all? How does something
> exist, according to the MOQ, if it is not a "pattern of value"?

The MOQ is the Quality Reality. Period! 

> But move away from "the MOQ" (we'll get there), and go back to just
> "the inorganic level". Are you saying that "levels" are NOT patterns
> of value at all? 

A level is a MOQ classification of its static VALUE patterns.

> According to the MOQ, everything except DQ is a "pattern of value", in
> fact "SQ" is restatable as "patterns of value". If everything is
> SQ(patterns of value) except DQ, then where are these "levels" that
> are not patterns of value?

Send that question to Robert Pirsig's representative DMB, it's not 
particularly relevant for the SOL interpretation

> Time for another Great Ostrich?

I think all these your word-traps stems from the self-defeating effort to 
include language into metaphysics, demonstrated in DMB's postulating 
Pre/Post Language as corresponding to MOQ's Dynamic/Static divide. 
Go to the "shame corner" (we call) and think about it.

Bodvar