Andre, I take issue with you in the same way I take issue with Marsha. Isn't it interesting that you and she are on the same side after all? Nonetheless, I dispute you both concerning what I see as a distinction between unknowable and indefinable.
> Andre: > DQ is the pre-intellectual event. It is indefinable and therefore > unknowable. As soon as it becomes knowable it is static. > > John: Many things cannot be defined, and yet they can be known. Love for instance. UFO's, ghosts, the wind, spirit. We have terms for many known phenomena in human experience that we cannot fully define. As I pointed out to Marsha, the very basic tenet of the MoQ is that while Quality cannot be defined, you do know what it is. Are you familiar with this passage? Have you actually read any of these books? Kidding. What goes around, comes around. Every time I have a disagreement upon interpretation, somebody throws that charge at me simply because my understanding doesn't coincide one-to-one with theirs. In this particular instance, I think perhaps my disagreement with you (and Marsha) might very well hinge upon our various semantic distinctions of "known" and "defined". So let me make my position perfectly clear. Defined refers to boundaries. When something is defined, we know where it starts and we know where it stops. Known however can refer to things that we can't define, but yet we realize in some nebulous way. You must admit this, or Pirsig's key point - you can't define Quality but you can know it - is just completely ridiculous. John 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
