[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ok, so maybe I just didn't get you right on that one. Your talk of the 
"map that contains itself" and stuff like that reminded myself of my own 
project, which failed to achieve what it was supposed to achieve. If 
that resemblance is not correct, you can tell me what your project is, 
or skip the subject for now, or whatever. However, I am interested of 
the ontological points I brought up, and my message does not only 
concern ontology.

I might have been wrong in saying that I was not defining Quality, but 
only a way of speaking of it. For what is a "definition" of X other than 
a way of speaking of X? But in that case, I'd like to know, what do the 
people who say Quality cannot be defined, exactly mean by that 
statement. I understand well that Dynamic Good cannot be defined in a 
certain sense, because if that were possible, Gödel's incompleteness 
theorems would not be true, provided that the analogy between 
dynamic-static-division and the incompleteness theorems is correct. But 
in another sense it can be defined, and Pirsig has already done this, right?

I'm under the impression that we can define what kind of things are 
Dynamic Good, or at least what kind of things are -not- Dynamic Good, 
even though we cannot deduce the things themselves from the definition. 
That is to say, we can make some statements about the properties of 
those things, but we cannot necessarily create Dynamic Good simply by 
defining it.

Besides, we are now only talking of Dynamic Good. Static quality, too, 
is Quality, right? And it can be defined, right?

-Tuukka