[MD] Is the MOQ static, or a static pattern?

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

All,
I'd like to open up some discussion about how the MOQ perceives the MOQ 
itself. I think we should all agree, that the MOQ is static. While I 
have complimented Marsha on "living the MOQ", I have only complimented 
her attitude when doing so. Her attitude definitely is good for living a 
life, with the selfless (pun not intended) way of saying what one 
perceives as true. She occasionally makes good observations, and is not 
ashamed of herself. In my heart, I have room for anyone like her. But I 
don't find "living the MOQ" to be much of a topic of discussion in and 
of itself, because that expression is used in such a way, that it 
implies Dynamic content language can only rarely capture in any 
satisfactory way.

I recall Pirsig said the MOQ is an intellectual pattern. On a related 
observation, some argue that language only begins to exist on the social 
level.

These arguments are related, because they are based on the historical 
interpretation of metaphysics. They argue, that as there have been 
bacteria and dinosaurs before there has been much language, societies or 
science, the MOQ has to include those biological patterns, but the MOQ 
itself has to be a higher pattern, as it consists of language.

I think the historical approach to metaphysics is always metaphorical. 
All patterns of the MOQ involve language. It doesn't mean anything 
specific to use the MOQ as a way of finding out, what did it feel like 
to be a dinosaur, who doesn't use much or any language. In the 
historical interpretation we may allege language to have arisen at, for 
example, the social level. But in a literal (non-metaphoric) 
interpretation of the MOQ, every pattern is necessarily based on 
language: language has already arisen, and cannot be undone with 
metaphysical trickery.

There are some ways to circumvent the limitations of language in 
metaphysics. These deal with the concepts of romantic quality and 
Dynamic Quality, and they are completely reasonable. But what is not 
reasonable is to insist that there are static patterns of value, which 
do not consist of language. It renders the notions of romantic quality 
and Dynamic Quality ambiguous or useless. These notions are already 
intended to explain the non-lingual aspects of experience. To create 
non-lingual patterns not only defeats the purpose of having romantic 
quality and Dynamic Quality, but it also makes us end up with two 
different kinds of static patterns, lingual and non-lingual, and the 
very difficult question of what do these different types of patterns 
have to do with each other apart from being bound together by the 
historical interpretation of metaphysics.

The patterns, even in Pirsig's SODV paper, which I dislike, are clearly 
expressed as classical quality, as classical quality is comprised of 
subjective and objective quality. Of course, this might open the debate 
of whether SODV's subjective and objective quality are ontological or 
epistemological. I think I presented a quite good argument for the case 
that this does not matter, as the MOQ is both ontological and 
epistemological, but my intention is not specifically to re-open *this* 
debate.

I am inclined to think, that for all intents and purposes, the MOQ 
itself either is static quality or behaves like static quality. But it 
is not an intellectual pattern. As the MOQ encompasses all patterns, and 
all patterns have a language component, the MOQ may not be expressed as 
any single pattern it describes. Or perhaps it may, but it is very 
unelegant to do so, and it also serves no apparent purpose.

Any thoughts on this?

Best wishes,
Tuukka