[MD] MOQ Recursion

[skutvik at online.no]

Hello Arlo

7 Aug.:

[Arlo]
> Answering the question "What type of pattern of values is a rock?" And
> being met with the rely "It's a pattern of values" is no answer at
> all. Its a cop-out of the highest order. Don't misunderstand, I am
> fully of aware of why the cop-out route is the only route possible if
> one wants to hold onto an belief that, when examined, yields nonsense.

I understand you are seething, I have not been kind with you but too 
much is at stake to observe niceties. To ask what type of pattern a 
rock is and not being satisfied with it being "static inorganic value" 
reveals that you are on the intellectual level and ask about some 
"nature" other than value.

> According to Pirsig's metaphysics, there are inorganic, biological,
> social and intellectual patterns of value (and Dynamic Quality). When
> I ask "what type of pov is a rock?", one should be able to answering
> this according to these metaphysical categories.

But you forget that this ordering of things is part and parcel of the 
MOQ.

> Asking "what type of pattern of value is 'the inorganic level'
> itself?" is no different, except in that its a question that exposes
> your entire "thesis" as a fraud. This is why Mary can't answer, and
> you and Marsha struggle to put up new metaphysical categories that
> posit a world made up of DQ/SQ/Levels-Labels-Metaphysics. (I'll get to
> that more in a bit, believe me).

Who asks about levels and patterns "themselves" except Arlo. Take 
your strawman elsewhere.

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

[Arlo]
> A new level then? The "levels" are a pattern of value of this new
> level above intellect, is that right?

No level at all unless you make language a metaphysical entity and 
THAT you obviously do.

> So we'll addend Pirsig's MOQ again, and say there are FIVE levels of
> "patterns of value": inorganic, biological, social, intellectual,
> Metaphysical.  This is what you are suggesting, is that right?
 
[Bo]
> The MOQ isn't above its levels, it contains the levels. 

[Arlo]
> To clarify, you do not think the Metaphysics of Quality is a pattern
> of value at all? But it is not DQ, and you've just said it is not SQ,
> so we are back to the trinity of DQ/SQ/MOQ as metaphysical categories.

No, as said above, the Quality ordering and the MOQ is identical. It 
has devoured your old SOM from where you cook up all these weird 
"problems" 

[Bo]
> The MOQ is the Quality Reality. Period! 
 
> [Arlo]
> The Metaphysics of Quality is the Quality Reality? Again, like Marsha,
> here you are confusing the undefined (Quality) with a definition
> (Metaphysics of Quality). You are, in effect, making the Word into the
> God.

As you know I'm no fan of any Quality outside the MOQ. The Quality 
ordering emerged with Phaedrus and like Newton's Gravity ordering 
that crystallized the past, present and past into the Gravity mold, the 
MOQ now crystallizes all "tenses" into the Quality mold.

> My guess is going to be that you do not see the Metaphysics of Quality
> as "an analogy", even though a pivotal insight by the pre-hospitalized
> Phaedrus was that "all this is just an analogy".

It was the insight that all is Quality that triggered the MOQ, if all is 
analogies a MOA is overdue. 
 
> "Of course it´s an analogy. Everything is an analogy. But the
> dialecticians don´t know that. That´s why the Chairman missed that
> statement of Socrates. Phædrus has caught it and remembered it,
> because if Socrates hadn´t stated it he wouldn´t have been telling
> the "Truth."" (ZMM)

In SOM (and Socrates was the chief SOM instigator) this may be so. 
In one way seen - materialism - nothing is analogies, but from its 
idealism everything is just .. language, analogies, hot air .. but the 
MOQ is supposed to have transcended SOM. And that is about as 
much as I can stand except this last point.  

[Arlo]
> Are you saying "language" is NOT a "pattern of value"? 

Language is a tricky bit, it surely arrived with the social level and as 
such is a "social pattern of value", but it clearly was adapted by 
intellect and in it service ever since. And there it was split along 
intellect's S/O matrix into what it talks about and the concepts 
themselves. It will be in MOQ's service too but here without intellect's 
split.   


Bodvar