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

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Tuukka]
Ahh, so this [recursion] is something like the Chomsky universal grammar thing.

[Arlo]
I'd say its an inevitable outcome of semiosis. "Universal" implies objectivity to me, so I don't use the word. Its like saying "if you jump of the Eiffel Tower, you will die". That does make death a 'universal grammar thing'? "Recursion" results because we are unable to 'step outside' the system, the illusion of SOM was that recursion could be overcome, that we could 'step out of the container'. But 'recursion' is also an analogy, if you stop treating it like one, you are back in SOM asking for all kinds of 'objective' definitions that are part of a 'non-recursive theory'. 

[Tuukka]
My argument is not that the MOQ can't be an intellectual pattern.

[Arlo]
Fair enough. You said instead that the MOQ is manifest on all static levels, i.e., MOQ = sq. The trouble for you continues to be conflating "Quality" with "The Metaphysics of Quality". It is Quality that is manifest on all static levels, the Metaphysics of Quality is a description (analogy) of this process.

[Tuukka]
I never said Quality manifests on every level, and I find that statement to convey no analytic meaning, as Quality cannot be determined to have any definite properties.

[Arlo]
You're right, that was a misstatement on my part. I said that "Quality" manifest on every level, as every level is a static pattern OF Quality. Every static pattern, from inorganic to intellectual is the result of Quality, of value, it is Quality that appears on every level, not "the MOQ". The MOQ is a description of this process. 

While Dynamic Quality cannot be defined, static quality can, in fact the experienced 'properties' are how we discern static patterns from the ongoing flux.

[Tuuka]
What do you mean by saying a taxonomy is not a manifestation of the MOQ? 

[Arlo]
A taxonomy is a intellectual manifestation of Quality, not a manifestation of "the MOQ". People were doing taxonomies long before Pirsig authored the MOQ, but nobody did anything before Quality. The MOQ is Pirsig coming along and describing the process that Quality manifests (DQ->SQ).

[Tuukka]
Gee, thanks.

[Arlo]
I didn't mean that in a derogatory way. If we are both talking about Pirsig's MOQ, that is one thing, if you are telling me that in your 12 level MOQ your axiom is Y, then I have no ability to argue for or against Y, we'd be talking past each other. If you are disagreeing with Pirsig and taking a contrary position, then I lack the insight to criticize or appraise your theory.