On 1/23/12, Andre <andrebroersen@gmai...> wrote:
> By the way, doesn't Pirsig use the term DQ? How can he do that and not
> refer to it.
> Pirsig knows what he's talking about.
Well this is a most enlightening answer. You say not to refer to DQ,
but that Pirsig can do it. Why is that? Isn't referring referring?
> You seem to be a little confused with what undefined means in MoQ terms.
> Okay, enlighten me Mark.
DQ is left "undefined" means that the words we use to describe it are
sentiments and not logical constructs. This is what the analogy of
the train is. It is a picture, not a wordy definition. The point was
to not pigeon-hole DQ into a static representation. A picture is not
static and each one of us forms a different picture. Glad I could
help you through this one, Andre. With a picture, we cannot grab it
and say: "this is exactly what DQ is".
> Why don't you think a little before reacting like a bull dog?
> You are referring to my response to Marsha's response to my post? Marsha has
> been misrepresenting Pirsig's ideas for a number of years now. Over the
> years dmb, myself and others have pointed these out to her and her dismissal
> of these objections have constantly been based on empty (!) grounds. To
> argue that there is no difference between DQ and sq, as the first slice of
> the MOQ is silly and makes a mockery of all that follows.
Are you suggesting that there are contributors here that have all the
answers as to what Pirsig's ideas are? Now, I will agree with you
that much represented in this forum is on empty (!) grounds, but this
is not only Marsha. MoQ is something new, it is something living and
growing, it needs more followers. Perhaps you can reference a post
where you further the concept of MoQ, for the general understanding of
the uninitiated. I could use it.
By the way, I agree that by definition, Quality is separated into two
distinct parts, sq and DQ. I have tried to explain this to Marsha,
but she has a hard time understanding this. We make DQ and sq up to
explain Quality. It is part of the metaphysics. Simple as that. All
we can do is represent ideas. Ideas are creative, and MoQ is being
created. We are connecting the stars in a different way.
> For a bit more detail I refer you to my post to David.
> And, oh, I do think before I react. It may not always be the most socially
> acceptable way or perhaps the most tactful way but there you have it. If the
> contents of my reactions to Marsha fail to represent the MOQ in any adequate
> way I am more than interested to hear them from you or anyone else.
I have to say, that my response to you is no different from your
response to Marsha (Guilty!). The easiest way to diminish Marsha's
contributions if you find them annoying is to not respond to them.
She thrives in this form of antagonism, it brings recognition. By the
way, I agree with your response to her in general.
I do not think that DQ is a precursor for sq in a cause effect or
structural manner. Trying to impart DQ using structuralism
(deconstruction) is very difficult. I think it is give and take from
both sides. Therefore that DQ is the fundamental nature of sq does
not make any sense. Is change the fundamental nature of sq? No, sq
is fundamental and it undergoes change. Both sq and DQ cannot exist
without each other, otherwise Quality would only be half Quality. As
we become creative in our heads coming up with sq, that is pure DQ.
The resulting sq can spawn more DQ. We are part and parcel of both.
If you have other ideas (besides reading from the Book to me) I would
be happy to discuss this with you. Or, you could just ignore me...