[MD] MOQ Recursion

[Mary]

Hi Matt,


> 
> > [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 [Arlo's]
> sentence, "So the
> > "inorganic level" is "pattern of value" of a new level above
> intellect".
> 
[Matt]
> If I understand Arlo correctly, he is asking you whether or not the
> phrase "inorganic level" is itself an inorganic pattern of values.  And
> put this way, I take it that it is clearly not the case that _any_
> phrase is _just_ an inorganic pattern: for a phrase to be a phrase and
> not just a puff of air or sequence of marks, it must be more than that.
> 

[Mary replies anew]

And if I understand you correctly, you are asking me to define what a
pattern of values is.  Well, I cannot add more than I've already said.  POVs
cannot be completely understood in terms of SOM since they are stable
patterns of DQ.  The DQ which can be defined is not DQ, right?

[Matt]
> The question is how we put together that truism with other things we
> know about static patterns and their interaction.  Arlo's trying to get
> cards out on the table so the different players in the game know what
> the other players in the game are working with, so we can know where we
> disagree if we disagree (and not just say we disagree when nobody's
> quite sure if that's true or not because we don't know what exactly
> each other are saying).
> 

[Mary replies again]

Sure.  I have nothing to hide and don't imagine anyone else here does
either.

[Matt]
> First step: what is a "level"?  You said that a "level" is not a
> "concept" and Arlo is trying to clarify in what senses a level is not a
> concept.  This all may seem very simple, and people may become very
> impatient at the seeming inanity at doggedly pursuing precision at this
> level of discourse, but when you are attempting to create a
> metaphysical system it is _paramount_ to have all your cards situated
> just right and to know what they precisely are.
> 

[Mary replies anew]

Ok, but levels and POVs will never make any sense in terms of SOM, which is
what all of you are looking for, I guess.  All I can tell you is what levels
and POVs are not.  DQ, which is the source of all levels and POVs is
undefined, so I can't tell you what Quality, Values, Morals, 'are'.  The
question is irrelevant.  Meaningless.  Nonsensical.  Better to ask, "What
kind of horse is your bicycle?"  They 'are' not.  They not 'are', because
'are' is a SOM 'concept' and they 'are' not 'concepts'.


> Matt said:
> If that is right, what remains, then, are questions about "adequacy":
> what is this inadequacy?  Arlo, I take it, doesn't see it.  I'm
> guessing it has something to do with "proper description," and that
> Arlo's problem is that to say that "the intellectual level" has a "way
> to describe" is a misnomer because I take it that the standard position
> is that the intellectual level _is_ description, or rather, where
> description occurs if it occurs at all.  I take it that one problem
> people might have is that they don't understand what a non-
> intellectual-level description is.
> 
> > [Mary said]
> > 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.
> 
> "The inadequacy Matt points to"?  I was wondering _what_, exactly, you
> think it is, so I'm surprised to find myself having successfully
> pointed at it.  

[Mary replies anew]

And I was impressed with the good job you did of describing the inadequacy.
How can you have an inadequate understanding of that which you so adequately
described?  What did you see yourself describing instead?

[Matt]
I said that some people "don't understand what a non-
> intellectual-level description is."  And you list a litany of
> injunctions that, for these people, make no sense.  And you call this
> "the real problem."  So, to be very explicit so that we are all on the
> same page: are you suggesting that the inadequacy of the "intellectual
> level" is that it _does not allow for_ the ability for other sub-
> intellectual-level entities (like rocks, fish, political parties) to
> _describe_?
> 

[Mary replies anew]

No, I'm saying SOM cannot adequately describe the levels since, for one
thing but not the only thing, it sees them as buckets.

Best,
Mary