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

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Arlo,
> [Tuukka]
> Due to my background with mathematics, I was checking whether this recursion is something that can be formally defined. If not, fine.
>
> [Arlo]
> I have to admit I'm a little surprised you have a background with mathematics but are not familiar with recursion. Your quest for 'formal definitions', remember Goedel's caution (here paraphrased by Hofstadter in GEB) "All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions". Indeed, it is THAT right there could easily be translated in Pirsig as "All metaphysics included undefined proposition". You're on a grand goose chase if you think you can develop a number theory that contains no undecidable propositions.

Tuukka:
To have no undecidable propositions was never my intention. In other 
words, I'm not an idiot! I am familiar with recursion, ie. I understand 
the joke behind the dictionary entry, that goes: "Recursion, /see 
Recursion/." I did not understand what part of the MOQ do you find as 
recursive, and how. I'm not at all sure my system of circular patterns, 
in which any pattern may include itself, would qualify as recursion in 
the formal sense. I suppose I'm being pretty strict about recursion. I 
asked about recursion because I wanted to know *specifically* what you mean.

I understand the MOQ may contain recursion in the sense that Dynamic 
Quality alters static quality, which in turn alters Dynamic Quality, and 
the altered DQ goes on to alter static quality, and so on. In this case, 
I see the recursion as a metaphor with no logical form. It can be 
"understood", but not analytically.

>
> [Tuukaa]
> What I like about the MOQ is that due to the emergence of the levels, any static thing can be seen to manifest itself on any pattern, but differently.
>
> [Arlo]
> Of course a [paper] map contains wood pulp, which itself is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, xylan, arabinose, and lignin.... which in turn consists of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. And in chemical production of paper, this has value, but in getting your motorcycle from Pittsburgh to Knoxville won't help you one bit.
>
> I have no idea what "any static thing can be seen to manifest itself on any pattern" means. How does my motorcycle manifest itself onto a potato?

Tuukka:
This gives rise to yet another conceptual ambiguity in the MOQ, or 
perhaps my misconception. I didn't mean that. Perhaps the concepts are 
also not so well handled by me, as I initially studied LILA from a 
Finnish translation, and may have learned terminology the wrong way.

Let's speak of levels for clarity, that is, inorganic level, biological 
level and so on. I meant, that any static thing (ie. not a level) 
manifests on all levels, but does so differently depending on the level. 
As a potato is not a level, a motorcycle does not manifest as a potato.

A potato does manifest as inorganic value (chemical compounds), 
biological value (taste, nutrition), social value (see van Gogh's 
"Potato eaters" - potatoes were the food of the poor back then) and 
intellectual value (biological taxonomies regarding potatoes, the 
evolution of the potato plant, etc.) So there's no reason to insist, 
that potatoes are exclusively biological value.

Want me to do the same thing for the motorcycle? A motorcycle manifests 
as inorganic value (metal, machinery), biological value (improves the 
mobility of the driver, may help in doing groceries), social value 
(associated with rebellion etc.) and intellectual value (how it works).

>
> [Tuukka]
> I know this may sound silly, but instead of trying to be useful, I was trying to be right...
>
> [Arlo]
> Ah, see, like I said, your difficulty is approaching this from the SOM view, and you've clearly just demonstrated this in the above statement.

Tuukka:
Don't sweat it. You thought I meant a motorcycle manifests as a potato, 
and that's why we didn't understand each other.

Tuukka