[MD] MOQ Recursion

[Mary]

> [Arlo]
> And again I ask, what type of pattern of values is the "inorganic
> level"
> itself? Do you think it is an inorganic, biological, social or
> intellectual
> pattern of value? Or some other kind of pattern of value?
> 
> Simply repeating "its a pattern of values" is a cop-out, since I know
> its a
> pattern of values, since that is in my question. You'd have no trouble
> saying a
> "rock" is an "inorganic pattern of values", would you? Or an "amoeba"
> is a
> "biological pattern of values"?
> 
> So which type of value pattern, according to Pirsig's metaphysics, is
> the
> "inorganic level" itself? Inorganic? Biological? Social? Intellectual?
> Other??
> 
> 

[Mary replies]

I fully understand that you want me to say the levels are Intellectual
Patterns of Value.  As discussed, of course they are!  I am not intending to
be insulting, but feel compelled to say that this is the kindergarten
understanding of the MoQ.  It is the way we all first come to know it; and,
as we've all been saying in various ways again and again, it is an
Intellectual 'description' of the MoQ-as-concept - not to be confused with
Quality itself.  It is what Marsha means when she says the MoQ becomes a POV
of the Intellectual Level when it is written, discussed, and described.  It
is the same casual 'blasphemy' we all commit whenever we refer to DQ using
language.  That is all the Intellectual Level is capable of.
 
You, DMB, and others seem to think you will have won some sort of victory by
getting those of us who see the Intellectual Level as SOM to say the levels
are intellectual patterns.  Well, sure.  OK.  If it makes you feel good,
then there is certainly that level of value in it.  Enjoy!  But it's a war
you truthfully do not want to win, since to win is to misunderstand the very
real power the MoQ offers for insight.  The freedom from SOM.

The situation is that though we all speak and write about the MoQ in SOM
terms, we do so only because we have no other way to communicate - and that
is not the same as saying the MoQ is nothing more than an intellectual
concept.  To say that is to misunderstand the deeper import.  Devalue it.
In fact, 'devalue' is the perfect word since that's exactly the nature of
SOM where the world is viewed as subjects and objects first and only
secondarily having value, quality or morality as an attribute. 

Now the concept of DQ is so obviously SOM-foreign that there is less danger
of misunderstanding DQ to be a subject or an object.  That is clear, and
rarely do you see people here objecting to sentences that refer to DQ nor do
you hear people insisting we define it.  But the levels are not nearly so
clearly understood as patterns of value rather than erroneously as
collections of similar things.  The difference is huge and apparently there
is no common agreement on this point.  That's why, for me it's important to
be clear when speaking about the levels to emphasize their nature as
patterns-of-value and not as collections of like things.

So, to properly answer your question about what level the definition of a
level resides on, the correct answer is that the 'definition' resides at the
Intellectual Level.  However, to answer the more important question of what
a level _is_ in MoQ terms, is to say it is a collection of patterns of
Quality, Values, Morals which agree; or, as Pirsig puts it, a collection of
Dynamic increments which have latched.


[Lila pp 97]
in a value-centered explanation of evolution they
are close to the Dynamic process itself, pulling the pattern of life
forward to greater levels of versatility and freedom.
Sometimes a Dynamic increment goes forward but can find no latching
mechanism and so fails and slips back to a previous latched position.
Whole species and cultures get lost this way. Sometimes a static pattern
becomes so powerful it prohibits any Dynamic moves forward. In both cases
the evolutionary process is halted for a while. But when it's not halted
the result has been an increase in power to control hostile forces or an
increase in versatility or both. The increase in versatility is directed
toward Dynamic Quality. The increase in power to control hostile forces is
directed toward static quality. Without Dynamic Quality the organism
cannot grow. Without static quality the organism cannot last. Both are
needed.

Best,
Mary