[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[MarshaV]

Hi Matt,

On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:

> 
> Hello Marsha,
> 
> Marsha said:
> I am looking forward to your laundry list concerning DQ, and even 
> more to your attempt to string them together into a logical syllogism.  
> Add the Oxford quote if you like.
> 
> Matt:
> I'm not sure why you're being facetious (as I take it you are being).  
> For I'm not sure how such a project would cut against anything you 
> are doing.  But, as I said, it was a project I long ago abandoned, 
> though I've attached below as an appendix to this post the list found 
> in a Draft to a post for the MD that I never sent (for the list is neither 
> complete, nor completely researched: in no way finished nor 
> defendable as it is; just what I found).

Marsha:
Interesting list.  I still have it that DQ is indivisible, indefinable, 
and unknowable. One, though, can experience it.  


> 
> Marsha said:
> I also resent your "groove on it" remark. I have an advanced degree, 
> but I'm not trying to posture as an Academic.  I would think a GOOD 
> motorcycle mechanic, or carpenter, or a musician, would be as 
> welcome on this list as university students and university instructors.  
> No one should be forced to speak academiceze.; well, only 
> Chimpanzees.
> 
> Matt:
> I take it you either didn't believe me or accept my attempt to suggest 
> that I wasn't, in my remarks, suggesting that everyone "should be 
> forced to speak academiceze."  I used "groove on it" because the 
> phrase was in my mind, for some reason, as being in the air here as 
> a translation of what it's like to follow Dynamic Quality.  I was using 
> it as technical phrase, if you will, not as a mode of put-down.
> 
> If you don't believe me when I say I don't think people have to read a 
> lick of professional philosophy to produce good amateur philosophy, 
> then there's not much more to say.  If you take me to be merely 
> posturing in front of an amateur crowd, then I wonder about my own 
> intelligence, considering that such "posturing" has clearly never 
> worked before, as--if I'm not mistaken--I'm almost universally 
> regarded as the closest thing to an academic snob the MD has (or, at 
> least, I might have the longest running tenure for being that).
> 
> If you believe I'm sincere, but unsuccessful in creating a via media 
> position for being able to value professional and amateur philosophy 
> equally without excluding the other, then I wonder where the fault 
> line exists in the position I wish to take.  For I do, like you, want to 
> say that amateur philosophers are not, ipso facto, "trying to posture 
> as academics," or as I put it "merely bad academics."  It appears 
> you think, against my explicit hopes, that I've implied that charge.  
> I'm just not sure how.

Marsha:
I could have been wrong.  Erase. Erase. Erase...   


> Matt


Marsha 






> 
> Appendix (from Nov. 2005): 
> Notes Towards a List of Uses of "Dynamic Quality"
> 
> 1.  DQ as undefined 73
> 2.  DQ as pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality 114, 118, 133 (as 
> primary empirical reality (76), as ultimate reality, as direct 
> experience (73, 112-3))
> 3.  DQ as betterness 132, 139
> 4.  DQ as the good (as moral order (111, 133))
> 5.  DQ as telos 160
> 6.  DQ as noun
> 7.  DQ as change 131, 139, 165
> 8.  DQ as weird 113, 138, 164 (new 133, 135)
> 9.  DQ as virginity (as orgasm) 74
> 10.  DQ as genesis 137 (as universal source of things (88, 133))
> 12.  DQ as inexpressible
> 13.  DQ as pre-reflective
> 14.  DQ as Romantic Quality
> 15.  DQ as intuition
> 16.  DQ as freedom 133, 139 (as broken 136)
> 17.  DQ as holistic viewpoint
> 18.  DQ as perfection 		 	   		  
> 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


 
___