[MD] Taking words Seriously

[118]

John,
I died laughing.  Sounds like something I would post.  I am too busy being real to worry about Reality.

Mark

On Oct 6, 2011, at 3:03 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
> 
> Just trolling through a long list from the top down and I came to this and
> couldn't resist...
> 
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Steven Peterson
> <peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> Hi Matt, dmb,
>> 
>> If experience is reality in the MOQ, then I don't see how we would
>> ever need to worry about being in touch with reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I rarely worry about it.  But then I notice lots of other people
> around me worrying for me.  But a good example is an infant.  According to
> Pirsig, infants are closer to DQ than you and me, (well, you at least.  I'm
> fairly infantile myself)  and everybody plainly sees that infants never
> worry about being in touch with reality.  So I think you bring out a good
> point there.
> 
> 
>> Likewise, if DQ
>> is the leading edge of experience, then how is perceiving DQ something
>> that "you" can be better or worse at? If this "you" is a set of static
>> pattern left in the wake of DQ, then it is always in intimate contact
>> with DQ.
>> 
>> 
> I think you're putting this pragmatically and with another good point -
> talking about DQ is really sort of futile, in the end.  What we're really
> interested in is sq.  But we can't really comprehend sq without
> comprehending what its not - DQ.  Once we have that down, we can rest.  But
> the problem I keep seeing over and over, is that staticity is more nebulous
> and mysterious than dynamism!  So I dunno.  I think I'll go play with my
> binky.
> 
> You seem to have a pretty good handle on it below.
> 
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> One important Pirsigian usage of "DQ" is talk about being attentive to
>> the distinction between concepts and reality, between DQ and sq, but
>> then such "DQ talk" is always conceptual. It's sq. That's the only
>> "trivializing" that is going on from my view. It is part of being
>> attentive to the distinction between concepts and reality to say so.
>> "Talk about DQ is sq" is what I think is meant by "DQ is a compliment
>> paid after the fact." That's surely one of the ways Pirsig uses the
>> term. When Pirsig says that sex is pure DQ, he is wielding the
>> "compliment" usage of "DQ." It is also used as a placeholder for the
>> conceptually unknown and some other ways distinct from the
>> "compliment" usage that might be worth cataloging.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Steve
>> 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
>> 
> 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