[MD] MOQ Recursion

[MarshaV]

On Aug 9, 2010, at 6:57 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Marsha]
> I might agree with you that it is all analogy, including every sentence you've
> written.  Not this, not that!!!   This makes it very easy to dismiss your
> rhetoric too.  
> 
> [Arlo]
> Does this provide you with an excuse to be able to say anything at all about
> Pirsig's metaphysical speculations?

Does it provide you with that excuse.  

            Arlo:
            All this is just an analogy.
            And you can restate this as such.
            All this is just an analogy, including this sentence.

Your statements are no less analogy than Bo's or mine. 


> 
> In any event, the agreement is null and void the minute you agree with Bo that
> "All this is just an analogy, except the MOQ". At that point, you've simply
> turned the Word into a God.

I certainly disagree with your interpretation of this analogy.  



> Pirsig's metaphysical musings are, like black and white horses of Socrates,
> "analogies" for understanding the indefinable void, as are all the metaphysics
> ever written and all that will ever be written. 

As you stated "All this is just an analogy.  And you can restate this as such.
All this is just an analogy, including this sentence."  There is no escape allotted
to your argument.  


> But if I say, "the levels in Pirsig's metaphysics are not patterns of value", I
> would expect others to question how such a thing can be in a "world" described
> of consisting only of DQ/SQ. The same way a mathematician would point out the
> fallacy of my claim that Arlo's New Math escapes recursion.

You expectations do not much concern me.  Why should they when they are 
based on your analogies.  Did you, or did you not, write the above analogy. 
You cannot expect that your analogies represent Truth?  Do they?   



 
___