I vote Platt's explanation, As I've said before, DQ can't be defined in words, only experience.
When the experience is of art or poetry, the experience can be shared in "intersubjective agreement". Furthermore, the experience of DQ leads to more DQ. Those who do this work of bringing DQ to other's attention through artistic merit are doing the god's work. Those who try to capture it in formulations of religion or metaphysics are doing the devil's. And usually, we are all a mix in flux, of doing both at various times. But of course, as always, Platt and I could be wrong. Pirsig wrote: > > "The same thing that's wrong with philosphology when it tries to control > and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to devour > the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic with a static > pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try?" (Lila, 32) > > I would argue that even though DQ cannot be captured by S/O > intellectual verbal patterns it can be captured by art (including poetry) > when the artwork provides a glimpse of the "indeterminate divine." > > For example: > > For I have learned > To look on nature, not as in the hour > Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes > The still, sad music of humanity, > Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power > To chasten and subdue. And I have felt > A presence that disturbs me with the joy > Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime > Of something far more deeply interfused, > Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, > And the round ocean and the living air, > And the blue sky, and in the mind of man; > A motion and a spirit, that impels > All thinking things, all objects of all thought, > And rolls through all things. > > -- Wordsworth > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
