[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Dave,

Matt said:
If I want to always be following DQ as much as possible, how do I 
know whether I'm dimly apprehending Dynamic Quality or 
apprehending dimly with static patterns?

DMB said:
You're asking about following DQ and how that differs from the 
following the static or conceptual, right?
...
To the extent that one is controlled by static patterns, one is stuck. 
To the extent that one follows DQ, one never gets stuck.

Matt:
Okay, so is "stuckness" the only criterion for being "controlled by 
static patterns"?  Are you saying that if you never feel "stuck" you 
are, ipso facto, following DQ?  

Are there not self-confident people who never feel stuck?  Isn't 
"stuckness" a function of being self-conscious about a problem having 
arisen, a function of a seed of doubt?  Wouldn't you never feel stuck 
if you never doubted the static patterns handed to you through 
acculturation? Isn't the inability to feel stuck the smug serenity we 
despise occasionally in the faith-based spiritualist?

I'm not sure you offered another criterion for knowing whether you 
are being controlled by the static/conceptual other than stuckness in 
your comparative list of pragmatist vocabularies, but I'm not sure 
how well it works.

Matt