[MD] Thinking: DQ/sq

[MarshaV]

Hello John,


On Aug 12, 2011, at 7:33 PM, John Carl wrote:

> 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.  


Oh goodie, tell me what you know of DQ.  Maybe we can compare 
experiences.   


Marsha 





> 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.


 
___