Bo ... this just seems like more "so we're really agreeing" again ...
Andre's words are clear about seeing MoQ / Code-of-Art as a level above / outside the intellectual. And later he sees it as "a code or morality ARISING out of intellect ... supreme to it" Absolutely I say. Quite frankly, any further debate about which "object" we add to our MoQ model to account for that, a 5th level, a new pattern, a new layer outside the levels is just more SOMist debate - can we add a thing to a model of itself ?. Fact is it "arose" from intellect, it emerged, it evolved from it, it is not a "part" of it in any mereological sense. I have no problem with containers containing themselves (except in a SOMist world of course, they are the problem of a SOMist world). The problem is the SOMist world our debate inhabits, not the apparently "impossible" logical recursion we find there. That's the clincher that the SOMist world is "the wrong world" I completely agree with you. The fact that each of us sees the other stuck in the same GOF intellectual rut, is good news, we are seeing the same problem, not a disagreement. ie I'm saying you don't disagree with that, I'm saying we have no means of communicating that agreement in this world, except through arts. Ian On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:26 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrè and Group. > > 20 Nov.you wrote: > >> Thank you for assisting me in trying to weave myself out of this >> slump, this mental block as I described it. After a while I remembered >> Pirsig's way of dealing with this...take a break, have a >> coffee...stare at the thing for a while. Well, I have and something >> came to me. > >> Whether is is real or perceived I am concerned about the 'DQ' part of >> reality within the intellectual formulation called MoQ (Pirsigs own >> words).Maybe disagreements will remain about interpretations, however, >> for myself, I would like some clarity. > > I must confess that this post made my day, week, month ... the whole > "chronology". I will return to it later, but must point to one particular > paragraph where you surpass your tutors. > >> There is another level above the ones already mentioned: the 5th code >> of morals: the Dynamic-static one! (Lila p307) and then it dawned on >> me...that is where the MoQ is!! It is the level earlier identified as >> the 'code of Art' (Lila p167). > >> THE CODE OF ART = THE METAPHYSICS OF QUALITY!!!!!!!!! IT IS THE 5TH >> LEVEL CODE OF MORALS!! DYNAMIC MORALITY!! > >> Pirsig argued/proved and rationally showed that 'art' is not a >> 'frill': that it underlines its importance! ( op cit, 167) The >> Dynamic-static code,says 'what is good in life isn't defined by >> society *or* intellect or biology. > >> And all of a sudden I found Static/Dynamic quality again (the very >> 'foundation' upon which this MoQ is built and deduced)...not in the >> intellectual formulation (as Pirsig has it) no, but as a code of >> dynamic morality arising out of intellect...supreme to it. (I can >> accept SQ as Intell. PoV's but then they are high quality PoV's and >> SOM is low quality). And in this formulation they are kept within >> overall/ overriding Quality. > >> The MoQ is thus saved from attack and from being undermined by >> whatever intellectual pattern is around at present. The MoQ does not >> only subsume but also rises above this pattern.It remains dynamic. The >> MoQ can claim supremacy over the intellectual level. (this may be >> disputed by some of you). With the 'code of Art' as the 5th level, it >> has supremacy over Intellectual PoV's and DQ is saved. > > I have previously claimed that the MOQ is the system that contains the > MOQ*), no 5th static level that so many keep harping on yet something > beyond the 4th. level, but haven't really used the "code of art beyond > intellect" that Pirsig speaks about to promote the SOL interpretation. > Maybe Platt has (he is the aesthetician) but I haven't paid enough > attention. Anyway, you Andrè has made this connection. Great! > > *) "Containing itself" is possible (the congruity theorem) while the > smaller container containing the bigger is impossible. > > See you > > Bodvar > > > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
