[MD] What am I doing here?

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

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, craigerb at comcast.net 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
>