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

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ant, Ian:

>> Ant McWatt comments:
>>
>> Arlo,
>>
>> Cheers for this post.  I found it a good summary of "recursiveness".  I have generally found Tuukka's comments in this thread rather inane (too Dynamic?) but, no matter, they've elicited some helpful (and patient!) responses from you.
>>
>> If I remember correctly it strikes me that it was this avoidance of (or confusion about) recursiveness (within the MOQ) that got Bodvar Skutvik on this "SOM equals the Intellectual level of the MOQ" idea in the first place. Not that this issue holds any particular interest for me but maybe this is a question that Bodvar should look into i.e. if you accept that "recursiveness is an unavoidable feature of all symbolic systems", does this make the SOLAQI redundant?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Anthony


Ian said:

Absolutely Ant. The acceptance (or avoidance) of recursion has been my
recurring (!) issue with freezing the whole intellectual level as one
static pattern (a la Bo). Tuukka you must recall that it was your
original interest in recursive (but constructive) patterns that I
responded to with a Hofstadter reference.




Tuukka:

In the Hofstadter book, recursion was expressed formally. This recursion 
Arlo was talking about was not. I was hoping to hear either a formal 
definition or a reason why one is not possible. I only became angry when 
Arlo portrayed me as an adherent of SOM because of that, instead of 
saying he doesn't have a formal definition. It would have been okay to 
not have one. What Arlo did was to conflate the metaphysician with his 
methods. If you've read the Bible, my metaphor of the menu and the 
golden calf doesn't make any less sense that Pirsig's original metaphor.

In any case, I disagree with the SOL idea that SOM is the intellectual 
level. Seems like the intention of SOL is to define the concepts of 
"subjective" and "false" as equivalent, and "objective" and "true" as 
equivalent, and that's just a waste of concepts.

Tuukka