[MD] Static latching & faith

[david buchanan]

SA asked:
SQ is quite meaningless?

dmb answers:
No. I have an understanding of static quality. Its DM's explanation of 
"borders" that I don't understand.

SA asked:
Now whatever it (sq) means to you, does it ever come and go on any Pirsig 
level?

dmb answers:
I don't know what "come and go" is supposed to mean here. And I don't know 
what DM meant by it either. In fact, "come and go" is one of DM's vaguely 
poetic phrases that I complained about in the first place. What's the deal? 
You guys are posting from a keg party and you're all falling-down drunk, 
right? Is that it? Well, that really hurts, man. Why wasn't I invited? Oh 
wait, I know why. Its a party for people who actually enjoy strings of 
vaguely poetic phrases...

SA said:
I know SQ is not meaningless, maybe DQ, yet, that could even be argued 
against.  SQ is full of definition having all sorts of lines and borders 
encasing something that delineates it with a value that is not nameless (DQ) 
but has identity.

dmb says:
More seriously and with less cruelty, I agree that sq is full of definitons, 
but other than that I really don't know what you mean either. And for pretty 
much the same reason that I'm not getting DM's meaning either. Encasing 
something that delineates it? Huh? DQ is maybe meaningless but is not 
nameless and has identity? Huh? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. 
I thought DM use of the word "borders" was supposed to mean something in the 
context in which he said it, which was a comment about transcendence and the 
inadequacies of scientific empiricism with respect to transcendence. Is that 
what you're talking about? If you're trying to help out there, I appreciate 
it. But I just don't see it because I don't know what you mean.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/