[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Steve and All,

Is there a modality revealed in the way that DQ is indefinable?  I want to
talk about emotions.

DQ emotions exist.  A logical point of view DQ/SQ manifests in an
intellectual level capable of governing DQ only emotional spontaneity.

In that way I see DQ as the emotional response to reality, always
indefinable, yet full of meaning, demanding a the need for action.
Intellectual DQ/SQ in logical precision overrides or accepts the emotional
impulse.  As governor of consciousness in indefinable emotions, intellect
DQ/SQ becomes the higher level in evolution.

Intellect manifesting through logic is a higher level than emotions.  How is
logic DQ/SQ a higher manifestation than emotional reality?  Emotions are
real or bogus in themselves outside of logic. I can only argue about the
object of love. No intellectual argument changes how I feel.  I leave that
to the gun, physical fear.  The intellectual logic DQ/SQ forces me to
reexamine my feelings for further developments creating a higher logical
environment beyond the spontaneous environment at the emotional level.

Joe


On 9/30/11 7:02 AM, "Steven Peterson" <peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:

> Steve:
> Given this RMP statement (and all that talk about Quality being
> undefined), dmb's objections are just the sort of objections we can
> _always_ make to what _anyone_ says about DQ. The only way to avoid
> such objections is to shut the hell up about DQ, but then of course
> dmb objects to not talking about DQ as well. But it is just absurd
> from the start for dmb to claim that he has properly grasped something
> in the name of DQ that you and I have missed given that "DQ" is (among
> other Pirsigian usages of the term) a placeholder for what is lost as
> soon as you think you have grasped it.