Andre, All. 17 March.
Steve originally: > I prefer to read Pirsig as saying Quality is reality. DQ/sq is a nice > tool for thinking about reality. Bodvar replies: > You see the mess that the Quality/MOQ "meta-metaphysics" has > created, the MOQ is totally log-jammed the only fish that thrives in > these muddy waters are the Matt and DMB kind. Kudos to you dear Steve > for not liking this state, but you will certainly not have any replies > from Pirsig, he knows well that he is the cause of the impasse. Andre butts in: > You are correct Steve by suggesting that Quality, the undifferentiated > aesthetic continuum, the flux, the Tao, Emptiness is reality, the > cutting edge, the source of 'pure' experience. This is the ineffabe, > the non-conceptual, the dynamic 'perspective' that cannot even be > called a perspective.( only convenioally) Andre reads my posts like the Devil reads the Bible, but acclaim for caring about the MOQ, there we have something in common. With Steve too who seemingly have begun to see problems with the "Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics. Listen. The dynamic, the flux, the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum ...etc. is expressed by DYNAMIC QUALITY. What is the use of postulating another more dynamic article? If it is writing a metaphysics about it that robs it of its purity, and you really think that language can be avoided ...phew, how naive is it possible to be? Will not "suggesting" be another static ensnaring and require another still more pure Quality, and even hinting to this ...etc. .ad infinitum. Bodvar 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
