Hello Ron 21 Nov. you wrote:
> > 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. Ron: Hello Bo, It is possible, just inaccurate. What is this "congruity > theorem" can you provide a link to it? thanks. I googled it and came up > with nothing. Perhaps I took a fast one here. A theorem is something more elaborate, but from my geometry lessons I remember the axioms of Euclid's geometry, one about congruity: Two triangles sharing one "leg" and whose angles are equal will overlap exactly. BTW It was the fifth axiom that was the weak one (two parallel lines will never meet or diverge) It sounds obvious in a flat space but .... and gave rise to the Rieman geometry. > The code of art or aestetics Pirsig defines as the "good" How do we > know what is good? Pirsig defines the "good" as Quality. Quality, he > says, is dynamic. Yes, how do we know? Pirsig's thesis is that all is good, but that doesn't say much, only with Dynamic/Static split - and the static levels - does Value become manifest, the upper level being superior to the lower ... etc. Now, the static hierarchy ends with intellect, thus something superior re. intellect must exist and this is the Quality Reality itself. Without it (the MOQ) as something beyond intellect, intellect (which is the S/O distinction). > He states that the good or Quality is defined by 4 static levels. > 4 static levels and the good or Quality they define. > Exactly what that good is in universal terms is impossible to define > because it is contingent on the 4 static levels . > The 4 static levels combine in infinite variety. > therefore the code of art is infinitly defineable. > the code of art being infinitly definable does not > allow itself to be universally defined. > A code of art or Quality that may not be absolutly defined is a > "dynamic Quality" or a dynamic code of art. > A dynamic code of art is, a dynamic quality. Is this supposed to refute Andrè's "code" idea? Well, the Quality Reality (the DQ/SQ) ... or simply the MOQ .... is neither dynamic or static so these conclusions don't apply. Andrè's is bringing the MOQ out of intellect's - SOM's - grip where it has been due to the "MOQ as an intellectual pattern" sentence. Bo 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/
