[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[Steven Peterson]

Hi dmb,

> dmb says:
> Apparently we can't even agree about the meaning of words like "reasoning" and "evidence". If dozens of explanations quoted from half a dozen scholars don't count as valid evidence and philosophical reasoning, then nothing would count. If you think presenting textual evidence from the author is the same as waging a popularity contest, then you are a very unreasonable person.

Steve:
I think we both know what reasoning and evidence are. What I am saying
is that you are providing evidence for something other than what I am
asking you. I am not looking for evidence that Pirsig _thinks_ we can
be closer to or further from DQ. We agree that he thinks that. I am
asking for the reasoning that supports that belief. I have given my
reasoning for why I think that notion is incompatible with other
aspects of Pirsig's philosophy. Again, I am asking for YOUR reasoning
or your understanding of Pirsig's reasoning for how it could be
possible to be out of touch with DQ. Here is my reasoning again in
case you want to engage with it:

(1) DQ is primary experience, the leading edge of experience
(2) To say that I am not in touch with DQ then is to say that my
experience does not have a leading edge.
(3) How can that be when I am a set of static patterns left in the
wake of that leading edge of experience? If I begin where DQ ends, how
can I be out of touch with it?

Best,
Steve