[MD] DMB and Me

[Andre Broersen]

Bodvar to Andre:
Andre reads my posts like the Devil reads the Bible, but acclaim for
caring about the MOQ, there we have something in common.

Andre:
This did give me a big laugh Bodvar, and it is good  be clear on who's who!
Even better to have a mutual concern.

Bodvar:
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?

Andre:
Who is postulating another 'more dynamic' article?

Bodvar:
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?

Andre:
Naive enough to suggest that a social static PoV (language) cannot adequately
be used to represent something dynamic, something ineffable. At best
it can approximate,
but then only in such way as to intuit.( e.g.by way of a koan) Its
dynamic 'purity' cannot be
'captured' by a static pattern. In the MoQ this would be an immoral act.

And, no, language cannot be avoided, but it is naive to mistake the
word for the pure experience.

Bodvar:
Will not "suggesting" be another static ensnaring and require another still more
pure Quality, and even hinting to this ...etc. .ad infinitum.

Andre:
Yes and no, that is why Pirsig called the writing of a Metaphysics of
Quality a contradiction.
He realised that 'suggesting' cannot ensnare DQ. It's a finger... pointing.
Accepting and intuiting this does not require still more pure Quality.
It is right under your nose.
And Pirsig does rub our noses into it, not understandng why some of us
deny even seeing it.

Ahem, sorry,... not under yours of course.. you are..... it.:-)

Oh well
Andre, the Bible basher