[MD] humpty dumpty

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Marsha]
By dropping off the question's context between conflicting beliefs (static patterns of value), you've changed the topic to Pierce's addressing 'belief' and 'doubt'.  I really meant to be addressing static patterns and not believing versus doubting.  I should have been clearer in my initial post.  

[Arlo]
The essay is larger than belief/doubt, but about 'conflicting' ways of fixing belief (Peirce orders them hierarchically). Do we 'fix' our beliefs on the basis of what we are told (authority), by reason (a priori), to satisfy a need that overrides alternate options (tenacity), by inquiry and alignment with experience (science). This particular essay does not map 1-1 to Pirsig's writings, but I think it leans towards his 'inquiry' being aligned with Pragmatism/James and hence a criticism of S/O thinking ('inquiry', for Peirce, was not a pursuit of Truth but a method for aligning activity and experience), where 'a priori' (reason) maps as the S/O view, 'authority' as social and 'tenacity' (by virtue of its psychological comforting) to (near-) 'biological'.

Maybe a "satisfies" map like:
Inquiry - intellectual level (MOQ)
Reason - intellectual level (S/O)
Authority - social level
Tenacity - biological level(ish).

The inorganic level has no mapping here, but as I read more about biosemiosis/cybersemiotics (just getting into these) maybe something will jump out.

Anyway, if this still misses what you are asking, I apologize.