[MD] Another parallel

[Andre Broersen]

dmb said:
I think it would be a big mistake to equate DQ with romantic thinking.
Bo replied:
It's plain that the romantic part was what became DQ

Andre:

Hi folks, what a pity I am watching this from the sidelines, the reasons for
which are not important, but I do find it great exchanges which help clarify
lots for me. I am rereading ZMM though.

DQ is the 'continually changing flux of immediate reality'. It must not be
allowed to be confused with the 'romantic' part Phaedrus talks about in ZMM.
My understanding is that there is no difference between Quality and DQ. The
SQ is, in ZMM terms, the classical/romantic (post-intellectual)
 differentiation. What else could it be? The classical/romantic SPLIT was
what got Phaedrus agitated..i.e. that which is abstracted from DQ ...the
very stuff of which we create the universe and ourselves. Phaedrus did not
like what the dominance of this classical/rational had done to himself  (as
a person). He knew there was more to himself that this rational part (a mind
divided against himself)...but how to come up with creditable, 'rational'
arguments to prove this? This is what ZMM is about and what Lila
continues...and much more.

The classic/ romantic ab/ex-traction from DQ did not represent all Phaedrus
wanted to convey because it did not fully explain his own experience...which
he felt deep down after the peyote experience with Dusenberry and the
Indians.In this sense is Pirsig a true empiricist.

It therefore became DQ/SQ. DQ being the undifferentiated and SQ the
differentiated patterns of Quality.

IMHO
Andre...off to Ireland.