[MD] MOQ Recursion

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo

skutvik at online.no wrote:
>"Refer to itself" is not the same as "containing itself"?

Not usually, but for the intellectual level it is, because it contains only references (to other patterns).

>To you Q-
>intellect is language-conveyed thinking and language can of course 
>refer to language.

Thinking is not required for my intellectual patterns, a note on a paper will do fine.

>But that is not MOQ's 4th level.

Yes it is. Nothing else makes sense if you want to take the levels more serious than just "a useful map of reality".

>Pirsig makes a big 
>point of the container logic in LILA 
>
>    This problem of trying to describe value in terms of substance 
>    has been the problem of a smaller container trying to contain a 
>    larger one. Value is not a subspecies of substance. Substance 
>    is a subspecies of value. When you reverse the containment 
>    process and define substance in terms of value the mystery 
>    disappears: substance is a 'stable pattern of inorganic values.' 
>    The problem then disappears. The world of objects and the 
>    world of values are unified.  

Is that what you call big? Yes, of course a smaller container can't contain a larger one, but you have to show that one container *is* the larger one, then you can apply the container logic.

And regarding the MoQ and the intellectual level, since the MoQ *is* an intellectual pattern, it can simply refer to the intellectual level. So no container logic is necessary.


>"Description in terms of substance" = SOM =  the intellectual level, 
>cannot contain the MOQ which is "description in terms of Quality". Get 
>it?    

Ah, so a description of a bird can't contain a description of the elephant on which the bird sits and eats? Because the elephant is bigger than the bird??

Come on! Both are *descriptions*. A description can refer to, i.e. contain, any other description because intellectual patterns are recursive. It's not ugly, or something we should avoid. It's just one of the aspects of the intellectual level that makes it so powerful.


>Your next point:
>
>> Then we're supposed to use the intellectual level to prove that it
>> couldn't have created itself?
>
>Shows the same fallacy, namely that "using the intellectual level" to 
>you spells using our language-conveyed intelligence, and with such a 
>grand mistake your are lost MOQ-wise.

No, I have just seen the MoQ levels outside of your confined human perspective stack.

> The correct thing is that we 
>use our intelligence - now in MOQ's service - to show that Q-intellect is 
>MOQ's creation. Will you never snap out of SOM? 

Will you ever snap out of your human perspective stack?

      Magnus