[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[118]

Hi dmb,
Thanks for the discussion.  My comments are below.

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:06 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Mark said to Dan:
> ...Pirsig is no God, he is not infallible, he would tell you that himself.
> You are treating him in a Theistic way, which is unbecoming of this
> metaphysics. .. Please explain why you deny rational thought to dynamic
> quality.  Have you read anything but Pirsig, for example Theistic premises?
>  I await your response and from anybody who agrees with you.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> It's not about Pirsig's infallibility or Dan's faith. It's just a matter of
> comprehending the idea. Dan understands it and you don't. Abusing Dan
> certainly won't help.
> The idea is fairly simple. DQ is experience PRIOR to rational thought. It
> is pre-conceptual experience. It's the cutting edge of experience. It's what
> you know before any definitions. That's why it can't be defined. DQ is NOT a
> metaphysical entity or a divine agent. The term refers to empirical reality,
> to experience itself. It's known directly and not merely believed in.
>

Mark replies:
Thank you for the concept concerning dynamic quality.  I have provided a
longer post in reply to Platt.  If it gets through, it may answer some of
your concerns.  I am not abusing Dan, I am asking direct questions supported
from my point of view.  I am not against Dan, I am against Theistic
introduction into MOQ.  This is not personal, it is conceptual.
 Comprehending the idea is what it is all about.  You have arrived there,
others may want to follow.  Provide the path without denying rational
thought.

Your definition of DQ is indeed appropriate.  I wish to probe deeper into
that definition.  Yes, known directly, so is God.  That is not a bad thing.
 Arriving at an appreciation of such knowing is what MOQ is about.  I
understand that conceptualization is difficult with such a thing, religions
have the same problem.  There is no such thing as a metaphysical entity,
only descriptions (conceptualizations) of such.  I understand all that, I am
working with that, I am providing rational thought into that.  This is not
just some fly-by-night attempt a bashing.  It is a serious inquiry into
values and morals.  I am following RMP's lead as presented in his titles

I wouldn't view my post as any kind of affront of MOQ.  It is a request for
rationality.  I distrust edicts such as the prohibition of applying rational
thought to dynamic quality, I don't think I am alone in that.  But, it is
just my opinion which is certainly open to debate.  You have responded to
the debate, and for that I thank you.  I am not the enemy, I simply request
clarification.  If you polarize this forum it can also have useful outcomes
resulting from debate, and such a thing is appropriate as well.  However,
all can be open to discussion if one wants to join in.  Certainly dismissal
of a concept is also appropriate.  However, you may not find much intuitive
support for such a thing without rational support.

Thanks for responding.

Mark

>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>