Hi Platt 1 May. u wrote to Horse:
> Thanks for the opportunity to further clarify my views. I have tried > to do so by inserting comments in your post below. ...and everything was superb until this point Platt > Perhaps this where we can find agreement -- SOM as the dominant > pattern of the intellectual level. I want to ponder that some more. I > wonder, for example, where does "mystic understanding" fit in the > levels? . Seems to me we understand some things (have ideas, thoughts > about) that we can't prove "intellectually," like the truth of Godel's > Theorem. Also, where does the idea of beauty fit? I disagree with > Pirsig's claim that nothing gets left out of his static levels. Even > he seems to have doubts when he imagines a Code of Art or something > similar. That is, it's good in the sense of wanting to be forthcoming to Horse, but to give the "devil the little finger ..." you know ;-) The intellectual level is either the S/O distinction (SOM ninus its metaphysical rank) or we are back in the quagmire. Regarding "the mystical understandings" these are not of the static realm but encounters with - or efforts at at reaching the dynamic, but that's a risky biz, IMO, no one can stay there permanently. The Indian fakirs try and it's impressive, but it will kill them. Regarding BEAUTY it would have been as good a candidate as Quality . Ref. Arlo's about the Reality=Quality issue. I commented it but that's the signal to clam shut. 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/md/archives.html
