[MD] Defining Dynamic Quality

[Matt Kundert]

DMB,

I apologize, but I don't think there's a lot for me to consider yet, at 
least not in the immediate sense.  I don't think I was backtracking at all.  
I didn't say I _agree_ that Pirsig's DQ has nothing to do with Platonism, I 
said that I understand that that is his intention.  I'm not fully thought 
out either way concerning his success.  The trouble is that in both your and 
Ant's explanations of what the distinction between postulation/intuition is 
for I don't really find anything that plays to my concerns.  You exposit, 
but not in a way that is surprising or all that elucidating for what I'm 
looking for.  All I see are more hair-raising propositions.  (The trouble, I 
suppose, is also that I don't have the time for homework assignments.)

Like I said, its probably because I'm not competent enough to make clear 
what I'm looking for.  But either way, what you've been writing isn't 
helping.  I'm not so much looking for grand expositions of Northrop, I'm 
looking for an engagement with the theoretical concerns I have.  I doubt 
exploring my "anti-metaphysicalness" could help until we are clear about 
what the word means, and I've certainly come to the conclusion that the word 
causes more trouble than its worth.

Because I'm not seeing anything forthcoming that's useful to me and because 
I'm not sure yet how to engage in a way that I get what I want, I think it 
perfectly fine, normal, and responsible to drop the subject until I can 
figure out what's going on.  Ya' know, go off in the woods and think for a 
while.  That's why the post about "why become Buddhist?"  I know you're not 
trying to actively convert me.  But it was a sign-off post designed to show 
my current trajectory, elaborating the broad questions I see on the horizon 
because the immediate questions/answers aren't doing anything for me.  You 
may not be trying to convert me to Buddhism in the immediate sense, but of 
course you are in the broad sense, for why else would you be engaging in 
conversational debate, attempting to show the superiority of your stance and 
philosophy, the superiority of Northrop to Dennett?  I'm not trying to 
actively convert anybody to pragmatism, but that's the natural end point if 
my arguments work.  So I asked: can I steer clear of Platonism and still not 
be a Buddhist?  Can there be a person who is not a Buddhist who has a 
philosophy that is acceptable to a Buddhist?  Does the rejection of 
Platonism mean Buddhism or does it just mean the rejection of Platonism?  If 
just "rejection of Platonism", then what other options are there and why not 
those?  What rules them out?

I think pondering those questions would be more fruitful than further 
elaboration on Northrop's categories because the elaboration hasn't shed any 
light on how Northrop escapes the Platonic or Kantian gaze over those 
categories.  At least I don't get it.  I may still be too incompetent.  But 
all I see are, "No, they have nothing to do with it," answers which aren't 
explanations of what I'm after but denials, pats on the head with the gentle 
coo, "don't worry your pretty little head about those things, its all taken 
care of."  But philosophy is about worrying about these things and I'm 
worried.

Matt

p.s. I thought we were at the beginning of something good, too.  I also wept 
when I read your e-mail because I didn't see the conversation I thought we 
were going to have.  Actually, that's a lie.  Your very polite and 
considered response, however polite and considered, didn't go in any of the 
directions I thought we needed to go, so I decided to just let it go.  I'm 
more of the mind to just move on.

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement