[MD] MOQ Recursion

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Mary]
I fully understand that you want me to say the levels are Intellectual Patterns
of Value. 

[Arlo]
What I want, Mary, is for you to tell me what YOU think they are. You said they
were "patterns of value", a different stance than Bo's
create-a-new-metaphysical-entity stance, so I am asking what type you think
they are. Are they a new kind? Or one of Pirsig's categories?

[Mary]
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.

[Arlo]
Okay, the "levels" are "intellectual patterns". If this was "kindergarten"
stuff, one wonders why it took so long to get you to say this. But thank you.

We agree here.

May I assume you have no problem considering that the "intellectual level"
itself is also an "intellectual pattern"? 

[Mary]
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.

[Arlo]
I am not the one confusing the Metaphysics of Quality with Quality itself, for
that you need look no further than Bo. And YOU make this same confusion above.

To fix it, you should say... Its the way we first come to konw it; and, as
we've all been saying in various ways again and again, the MOQ is an
intellectual 'description' of Quality itself.

See? No confusion. The way you had written it, the "Metaphysics of Quality" is
confused with "Quality" itself. As I said to both Marsha and Bo, you are
confusing the undefined (Quality) with Pirsig's attempt at a definition (the
Metaphysics of Quality). 

[Mary]
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.

[Arlo]
If all the intellectual level was capable of was "blasphemy", then why does it
sit atop the moral hierarchy? In any case, the intellectual level is capable of
producing great metaphors and analogies (intellectual patterns of value) that
point to the 'indefinable abyss' (see, case in point). This is no more
"blasphemy" than a painting that takes the observer beyond its static inorganic
value patterns and casts his gaze onto the shadows forever at the periphery of
his vision.

[Mary]
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.

[Arlo]
A victory for clarity, perhaps. The real point I started with was simply that
ALL metaphysical descriptions of reality powerful enough to be meaningful are
unavoidably recursive. This is not some "SOM" thing (as those who misuse that
acronym are prone to proclaim), but reducible to the very important insight
Phaedus had in ZMM.

All this is just an analogy.

And you can restate this as such.

All this is just an analogy, including this sentence.

Creating a new level above intellect, or creating new metaphysical entities
doesn't escape this.

[Mary]
... since to win is to misunderstand the very real power the MoQ offers for
insight.  The freedom from SOM.

[Arlo]
Ugh. I really hate how you all so awfully misuse that acronym. In any event,
the only "win" scenario I see here is in understanding that "all this is an
analogy", and that includes Pirsig's metaphysics. 

[Mary]
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.

[Arlo]
Okay.

[Mary]
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.

[Arlo]
Okay. I have no problem with this. As my initial question referred to, "is the
'set of inorganic patterns of value' also a pattern of value?"

Of course the "levels" are collections. And collections are intellectual
patterns of value. Hence, unavoidable and glorious recursion.

Which is no different than agreeing with Pirsig that his metaphysical
speculations are intellectual patterns of value, analogies, a map, a painting,
a pointer that uses intellectual patterns of value to point to the indefinable
well-spring of Dynamic Quality.

Instead, whether its fear of recursion or something else, SOL misconstrues the
"Metaphysics of Quality" with Quality, it un-analogues the analogies and makes
them "Truth". Or, in other terms, it confuses a map with the terrain it seeks
to describe.