[MD] The first cut.

[Andre]

Mark to Andre:

Well this is a most enlightening answer.  You say not to refer to DQ, but that Pirsig can do it. Why is that?

Andre:
For the reason's you state a little further on in your response Mark. The term DQ is not meant to be a concept but only a referring term. (Did I say not to 'refer' to DQ??)
"It's important to keep all 'concepts' out of Dynamic Quality. Concepts are always static. Once they get into Dynamic Quality they'll overrun it and try to present it as some kind of concept itself".  (Anthony's PhD, p 35)

Marsha muddles it up by conflating DQ with sq and sq with DQ. From an MOQ perspective there is a little problem there.

Mark:
DQ is left "undefined" means that the words we use to describe it are sentiments and not logical constructs.  This is what the analogy of the train is.  It is a picture, not a wordy definition.

Andre:
Interesting, but surely a picture is a static representation of something. I always thought the analogy of the train was meant to indicate static patterns of value. DQ is the 'front egde' of this analogy...not in the picture. Maybe I misunderstand.

Mark:
By the way, I agree that by definition, Quality is separated into two distinct parts, sq and DQ.

Andre:
Not sure how you use the word "distinct" or "separated" Mark. The one is a manifestation of the other, a static manifestation. Quality, as I understand it is not-two.

Mark:
If you have other ideas (besides reading from the Book to me) I would be happy to discuss this with you.  Or, you could just ignore me...

Andre:
It's not a question of ignoring Mark. If only I had something useful to say and once I do I will.