Craig,
well, I guess I'm asking a lot if I'm asking you to read all these
chapters, but on the other hand, you read LILA, which is a lot longer:
http://www.moq.fi/sets-of-quality/on-relativizability/
http://www.moq.fi/sets-of-quality/the-subjective/
http://www.moq.fi/sets-of-quality/the-normative/
http://www.moq.fi/sets-of-quality/the-aesthetic/
http://www.moq.fi/sets-of-quality/formal-soq/
The password is "kekkuli". Overly formal expression omitted from the
relativizability chapter.
Tuukka
31.5.2012 20:06, [email protected] wrote:
[Tuukka]
They will not tell me why
they hold the number four as sacred, as in, that there have to be
exactly four levels of static value, and a MOQ with eight or sixteen
levels is not MOQ or at least not interesting in any way whatsoever.
Four isn't sacred, but four is what has been shown to have explanatory power.
Pirsig has indicated how each level has evolved from the previous& has given
examples. ("Code of Art" hasn't caught on because it fails both these
criteria.)
To argue for a number other than four, one must show the connection to the
other levels
& give convincing examples.
Craig
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
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
