[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]
> As I read Pirsig, a "pattern of values" of any level you pick is a
> latching of
> Dynamic Quality into Static Quality.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Right, but on which level is the "inorganic level"? Is the "inorganic
> level"
> itself an inorganic, biological, social or intellectual pattern of
> value? Or
> none of the above?
> 
> You had said 'levels aren't concepts', and so I am asking what ARE
> they?
> 

[Mary replies anew]

And again I must say, patterns of value are latchings of Dynamic Quality
into Static Quality.  No more no less.  That we have concepts about them
does not make them concepts, though they can certainly be conceptualized.


> [Mary]
> I guess I don't understand your sentence, "So the "inorganic level" is
> "pattern
> of value" of a new level above intellect".
> 
> [Arlo]
> Well, this was a follow up to asking if the "inorganic level" itself
> (or
> "levels" themselves) aren't inorganic, biological, social or
> intellectual
> patterns of value, would that mean that the "levels" are patterns of
> value of a
> new level placed above intellect?
> 
> [Mary]
> Ask a rock to describe a fish.
> 
> [Arlo]
> This is a poor analogy, as within the rock's experiential domain "fish"
> do not
> exist (they are not experienced). 

[Mary replies again]

Fish are not experienced, but the inorganic patterns comprising the fish are
experienced, so to that extent, the fish is experienced, it is just not
understood beyond the inorganic level by the rock.

[Arlo]
But Pirsig did write two books about
> Quality,
> and although he maintains the central term as undefined, Quality is
> something
> we all do experience.
> 

[Mary replies again]

Quality is experienced by every level at every level.

[Arlo]
> Are you suggesting, though, that asking someone what kind of pattern of
> value
> is the "inorganic level" is akin to asking a rock to describe a fish???
> 
> 
[Mary replies again]

Yes.

You ignored most of my original reply, which was:

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.  

I can only add to this that it is a meaningless question to as "what _kind_
of pattern of value is X".  To ask 'what kind' is to engage in SOM.

Best,
Mary