[MD] Taking words Seriously

[Ian Glendinning]

>
>
> dmb said to Matt, Ian and y'all:
> The criticism I have in mind, however, is definitely based on the assertion
> that DQ is best understood as the primary empirical reality. The problem is
> not your [Matt's] failure to mention DQ often enough, of course. The problem
> is characterizing DQ in such a way that it becomes trivial, inert or a
> relatively meaningless factor.
>
>
Ian replies - DQ as primary empirical reality - absolutely (who's
disagreeing?). I'm trying to (help) answer a question like - so what is this
primary empirical reality like then ?

So let's riff on my DQ as "pure-potential" suggestion - imagine what it's
like to experiencing the world as everything it could be, rather than as
pre-conceived by any number of existing static patterns.

We can choose any number of metaphors we like to try to express what that
might be like - but whichever metaphor we use is going to use some existing
understood static pattern (in this world anyway). The metaphor will always
be less than the real thing - trivial by comparison, but not trivial. The
blank sheet is a bit static, I'll grant you, but it's been used by the poets
since time immemorial, to contrast with the static belief that "It is
written".

Ian