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

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Tuukka]
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...

[Arlo]
I don't have a lot of interest in revisiting this topic, so I'm going to hit one point only and let the others answer if they choose. 

The problem, as I see it, is an inability to accept recursion. You are basically saying a 'definition' can never be what it 'defines'. In this sense, the same problem appears with ANY metaphysics. A subject-object metaphysics, for example, could not itself be a 'subject' or an 'object' since it 'encompasses' those categories. The theory of Plato's Forms can not be a 'form' itself, because it 'encompasses' forms. The metaphysical idea that reality is composed of 'ideas' can't itself be an idea, and so on and so on.

You are, simply, creating the problem that a 'description of reality' can't be a part of the reality it describes. There are two, more or less, ways you can deal with this. Recursion, and the subsequent incompleteness and strange loops that result, or an endless 'regress' as you attempt to back up at each step and demand a view that is 'outside' of what is being viewed. 

Attempts made to make a MOQ that is not itself a pattern reject the fundamental division of Pirsig's MOQ into sq/dq, by trying to back the MOQ up into a space that sits outside sq/dq. In your case, you are trying to position a MOQ in between sq and dq, from what I can see, proposing something like a primary division into "DQ/MOQ". I'm not sure what practical benefit such a description would have, but it seems more confusing to me than helpful.

I think this (recursion) is the primary force behind Pirsig's notion that "all this is just an analogy", and I think trying to got the route of 'regress' (rather than recursion) is a result of the very SOM type thinking Pirsig is arguing against. It was his difficulty in his early years to come to terms with the 'making the scientific method itself the object of analysis', it led to strange, non-rational, places (via Poincare and Einstein) that SOM just could not deal with. It was the break from that form of thinking that led him to develop a MOQ. 

In other words, you are trying to extend Pirsig's statement to read "all this is just an analogy, except this statement", and I think Pirsig would instead extend it by saying "all this is just analogy, including this statement". The former may seem more immediately satisfying, but it doesn't hold up. The latter can be confusing to the S/O mindset, but hold us much better.