[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

Joe -- though I fail to follow a number of your inferences in the 
compact extrapolatory form they take (namely, "defined logic Physics 
SQ mathematics in these modern times"), I take it that my adherence 
to the Rortyan supposition that literal words are simply dead 
metaphors (built as it is out of Nietzsche's that truth is a mobile army 
of metaphors and Shelley's before him that poets are the 
unacknowledged legislators of humankind) to be enough to clear me 
of unintended closeness to scientistic reductions of poetry off the map 
of understanding (a supposition Pirsig adheres to in his understanding 
of "mythos").  Or, "laundry list" is just one more potentially useful 
metaphor waiting for its poetic release.

Matt

> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 17:59:34 -0700
> From: jhmau at comcast.net
> Hi Matt and all,
> 
> The distinction between Physics and Metaphysics!  When I made that comment I
> was focused on the concept "DQ is indefinable".
> 
> How can you communicate in defined the terms validity of the understandable-
> indefinable in any terms beside poetic analogy.  I saw the "laundry list" as
> an assumption that poetry, which is not viewed as a "laundry list", is not
> necessary for philosophy DQ/SQ.
> 
> Imho the groundwork for the discussion of such poetry, the description
> evolution, has not been fully explored beyond the statement "I know the
> indefinable."  To lay a groundwork for the "laundry list" demands the
> distinction be highlighted between analogous poetic Metaphysics DQ/SQ and
> defined logic Physics SQ mathematics in these modern times.
> 
> I was only raising a red flag, I did not fire the canon.  IMHO evolution is
> levels in existence.
> 
> Joe 
> 
> On 9/5/11 4:10 PM, "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > (This distinction between DQ and "DQ" may perhaps catch Joe's
> > distinction between the "metaphysical description DQ/SQ" and what
> > he took to my abandonment of it in favor of the "laundry list."  I
> > hope this and what follows suggests why I do not take the issue of
> > abandonment to even arise.)