[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

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