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

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[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.

[Arlo]
Arlo was talking about recursion in the exact same light as Hofstadter, since I brought him up to help you understand something you clearly do not. 

[Tuukka]
What Arlo did was to conflate the metaphysician with his methods. 

[Arlo]
I should've anticipated this strategy. Since I've pointed out several areas where you make erroneous conflations, it shouldn't surprise me that you'd try invent some reason to bounce the accusation back at me. Its sad, because rather than taking the time to try to understand the mistakes you are making, you'd prefer to deflect criticism in this way. So I am done now, good luck with your project.

[Ant]
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.

[Arlo]
Thanks Ant, its increasingly clear to me that Tuukka is really struggling with recursion. Hey claims to understand it, claims to have read Hofstadter, but in the next sentence falls right back into the very SOM trap Hofstadter (and Pirsig) warn against - of trying to 'formally define' his way past it. In any event, he's talking about his 12 level MOQ and not Pirsig, so... 

[Ant]
if you accept that "recursiveness is an unavoidable feature of all symbolic systems", does this make the SOLAQI redundant?

[Arlo]
It does, and I did try to point this out to Bo, but like Tuukka he's caught up in trying to define a MOQ via an SOM lens, in different ways to be sure, but the confusion is the same.