[MD] Dewey's Zen

[Andre]

David to Ant:
He wanted to define DQ as little as possible. Everyone knows what DQ is 
when they experience it. The more we strangle it with static definitions 
the more it isn't Dynamic Quality. This is why the majority of Lila is 
spent talking about not Dynamic Quality but static quality.

Andre:
Hi David, Anthony,
I am reasonably okay with what you are arguing David but have my 
reservations. I have asked this... or rather stated this...many times 
before. I am so surprised at the attention DQ gets in lieu of sq.

It seems to me that, when Pirsig reflected upon the success of ZMM, the 
'cult' book which 'made everyone feel good in the end' because of the 
'happy ending' most posters here on this discuss still want a repeat of 
that which they haven't found in LILA. They still want a happy goody 
feely. And I think that that 'happy goody feely' came about because of 
this mysterious thing called Quality which was left undefined. My point: 
the happy goody feely was because it was undefined. People could imagine 
all sorts of things when referring to Quality. They could let their 
imagination run rampant whether it was on a motorcycle or lying in the 
sun or having sex or reading a book or just being bored or stuck or 
fucked up about something. In other words they had a ball... floating 
three inches above the foot level.

I must stress that I do not count you amongst "them" but must suggest 
that LILA brought everyone down to earth. The three inches disappeared 
and people did not like it. Still high on ZMM there are our Marsha's and 
Mark's and countless others who have come and gone here on this discuss 
wanting to make something more of sq because DQ had let something loose 
in their heads with which sq could not cope or rather which does not 
reflect sq and cannot be reflected by sq. They really have a very hard 
time accepting LILA because it does not meet their imaginations (up with 
the daisies) or expectations (lift me four inches higher above foot level!)

Hence the silliness that is going on. The non-differentiation of DQ/sq, 
the incomprehension at need of latching, the comments that Pirsig 
doesn't know his own metaphysics, that Pirsig doesn't realize the 
implications of what he has said etc etc.

I would simply say:... DQ...

Still pond
A frog jumps in
Plop!