[MD] MOQ Recursion

[skutvik at online.no]

Mary, Arlo, All.

8 Aug.:

> [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?

Arlo wants us to tell him what the levels are! Wow, after all these years 
he is still at that stage! Pirsig says that all things, phenomena ..etc. are 
to be found inside the levels, these and DQ are all there are, thus 
Arlo's weird logic finds that the levels themselves - the classification 
term "level" - must be some new category, neither static nor dynamic.      


[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"? 

Some Sherlock Holmes style. Mary did not say that the classification 
"intellectual" is an intellectual pattern, she merely concluded that you 
yearned for that reply

[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.

Right, not only the intellectual level, but the whole MOQ started as a 
intellectual-in-its-SOM role pattern, but is now in the process of tearing 
its intellectual ties, but Arlo & Co has no intention of leaving intellect 
and as is its wont asks for the objective - real, behind the words - 
nature of things.     

[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.

Do we hear Aristotle's SOM  reverberating down through the 
millennias "An intellectual (read: subjective) description of objective 
Quality". To use Phaedrus' words "where were Quality before the 
MOQ"? The MOQ created the Quality Reality like Newton's  created 
the Gravity one. And both are immensely powerful explanatory-wise.  
The latter-day Pirsig may have walked into the same pit as those who 
think Gravity has always been and - now - shedding Phaedrus, claims 
that Quality is the new Aristotelian Reality that we make up countless 
metaphysics about. But if we are to leave SOM it must be left totally 
not with all these tentacles still intact..     

Bodvar