On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Platt > > Where did Pirsig say this? I believe he talked about a code of art and this > was in the context of relating Intellect to DQ. If there is a level of art > then it becomes static quality - something that art is not - or shouldn't be > anyway! > > Cheers > > Horse Hi Horse, Chapter 13 of Lila. The context is the supremacy of higher moral codes of lower with the top being Dynamic morality which might be called a code of art From Pirsig's comments about the MOQ being open to improvements (philosophy vs. philosophology) I presume the MOQ, like art, isn't static, or shouldn't be anyway. What do you think? Regards, > > On 28/06/2010 17:09, [email protected] wrote: > >> Which is why we might want to resurrect Pirsig's suggestion that there >> might be >> a fifth level of Art. In such a level I would argue the MOQ truly belongs. >> What >> do you think? >> >> > > > 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
