[Arlo had asked] If it is not an inorganic or biological or social or intellectual pattern of value, what is it?
[Mary replies] A pattern of values is exactly that - a pattern of values. [Arlo] Okay, but you aren't answering my question at all. Is the "inorganic level" itself an inorganic, biological, social or intellectual "pattern of values"? Of course its a "pattern of values", but what kind is it? None of the above? If not, then what kind? [Mary] That is the intellectual level way to describe something which really cannot be properly described at all by the Intellectual Level. [Arlo] So then its a new level, above intellect, that "describes" what the "inorganic level" itself is? [Mary] The whole problem here is that the MoQ cannot be completely understood in terms of the Intellectual Level. The Intellectual Level is inadequate to describe that of which it is but a part. [Arlo] So the "inorganic level" is "pattern of value" of a new level above intellect, is that what you are saying? And what is inadequate about the way "intellect" would describe the "inorganic level"? Do you think Pirsig's description of "the inorganic level" is beyond intellectual description? [Matt] If that is right, what remains, then, are questions about "adequacy": what is this inadequacy? Arlo, I take it, doesn't see it. [Arlo] Okay, then tell me why the "intellectual level" is "inadequate" to describe the "inorganic level". I take it you agree that the "inorganic level" is a "pattern of value" of some level above intellect? No? Yes? [Matt] What I'm guessing Arlo would agree with, and why the "recursion" bit in the subject line has, I think, so far remained mysterious, is that once one _doesn't_ understand intellectual-level behavior as, in ZMM's vocabulary, _the dialectic_, as the usurper that tries to _encapsulate_ the Good, one has no need to fear recursion, or in the philosophical problematic given to us by the Ancients: fear of the infinite regress. [Arlo] Arlo has been quite clear in saying that ALL metaphysical descriptions of reality powerful enough to be meaningful are INESCAPABLY recursive. Once you say that the "inorganic level" is a pattern of value of some higher level, this still leads to "regress" when the MOQ is used to analyze "the MOQ". Creating another level is a gumdrop, it tastes good at first, but in the end has no calories and is bad for you. But I don't want to skip ahead, right now I am still interested in hearing what kind of "pattern of value" IS the "inorganic level", if it is NOT an inorganic, biological, social or intellectual one. [Matt] Specifically to the Metaphysics of Quality, once one no longer fears recursion, one will no longer think that the static/DQ distinction is "inadequate," which under your understanding, I take it, it would have to be. [Arlo] I am not sure if this is addressed to Mary or to me, I think Mary, but I am not sure. But yes, "recursion", like "analogy", is something that greater minds than my own have stopped "fearing" long ago. What's very sad is that some here seem to think that "recursion" has something to do with "SOM" (even though those who trumpet that acronym the most are those who understand it the least). I chose the "inorganic level" in this because its immediate threat level is less, but the same question can basically be asked, "is the 'intellectual level' an intellectual pattern of value?". That is, "is the 'set of intellectual patterns' itself an 'intellectual pattern'?", and hence does it contain itself? And be very careful here, because the "recursion" is NOT eliminated by adding another level. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
