[MD] DMB and Me

[skutvik at online.no]

Andre, All.

17 March.

Steve originally:
> I prefer to read Pirsig as saying Quality is reality. DQ/sq is a nice
> tool for thinking about reality.

Bodvar replies:
> You see the mess that the Quality/MOQ "meta-metaphysics" has
> created, the MOQ is totally log-jammed the only fish that thrives in
> these muddy waters are the Matt and DMB kind. Kudos to you dear Steve
> for not liking this state, but you will certainly not have any replies
> from Pirsig, he knows well that he is the cause of the impasse.
 
Andre butts in:
> You are correct Steve by suggesting that Quality, the undifferentiated
> aesthetic continuum, the flux, the Tao, Emptiness is reality, the
> cutting edge, the source of  'pure' experience. This is the ineffabe,
> the non-conceptual, the dynamic 'perspective' that cannot even be
> called a perspective.( only convenioally)

Andre reads my posts like the Devil reads the Bible, but acclaim for 
caring about the MOQ, there we have something in common. With 
Steve too who seemingly have begun to see problems with the 
"Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics.

Listen. The dynamic, the flux, the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum  
...etc. is expressed by DYNAMIC QUALITY. What is the use of 
postulating another more dynamic article? If it is  writing a metaphysics 
about it that robs it of its purity, and you really think that language can 
be avoided ...phew, how naive is it possible to be? Will not 
"suggesting" be another static ensnaring and require another still more 
pure Quality, and even hinting to this ...etc. .ad infinitum. 

Bodvar