Bo: 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.
Ron: Which then supported Einsteins theories giving him a formal method in which to calculate the curvature of space and help prove his theories. If it not for the persistence of mathematicians, physics would not be where it is. I do not see how euclids 5th postulate address the notion of infinite regress in the logical expression of the conceptual containment of a dynamic reality. My tiny skull trying to contain dynamic reality is the problem of a smaller container trying to encase something larger, calling it MoQ is attempting to do such a thing. Ron prev. > 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. Bo: 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). Ron: Certainly Quality is superior to intellect , it is also superior to society biology and the inorganic. Qualtiy is the act of distinction. The act of distinction creates the four levels, the four levels influence the act of distinction. A self reflecting system. The Quality or the "MoQ" you see as superior to intellect is in part a reflection of the static levels and the act of distinction. Ron: > 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. Bo: 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. Ron: Not refute it but explain that the code of art, dynamic quality, is primary to static quality by way of MoQ morality. when you say : "Well, the Quality Reality (the DQ/SQ) ... or simply the MOQ .... is neither dynamic or static so these conclusions don't apply." You say DQ/SQ is niether static nor dynamic yet you say that reality is DQ/SQ. What IS MoQ then if it is niether DQ or SQ? What you say here in effect is that reality is not reality, I must ask what then is reality if it is not reality? thanks Bo 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/ Hello Bo 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. 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/
