[MD] Thinking: DQ/sq

[John Carl]

Hi Marsha and Joe,

I'd disagree vehemently with the notion of unknowability applied to DQ,
Marsha.  It might not be definable, but you KNOW what it is.  I think that
is the very heart of the MoQ, right there.  That immediately accessible
knowability is absolutely attached to what I understand by the term "DQ".

And I guess I'd want to repeat here that I don't think it's "best explained"
in any format.  It's best experienced, if you ask me.

Which, I note, you didn't.  But then that's the way it is around here.
 Never know who's gonna jump in and make a comment.  Invited or no.  I can't
exactly describe that as DQ, but I do experience it that way.

Yours,

John

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:40 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Mr. Pirsig stated it was unknowable, as well as indivisible and
> undefinable.  That would be no-thing to know and no one to
> know it.  As Dan said, it is best explained as what it is not.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
>
> > Hi Marsha,
> >
> > The word "unknowable" seems out of place in describing DQ, since it is a
> > principle in metaphysics.  This which would make metaphysics a dream
> > sequence.  Where's the meat?
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > On 8/10/11 11:54 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.
> >
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>