Hello everyone On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:16 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Steve replied: > I'm not sure what your point is. Are you contending that in the hot stove > example Pirsig is describing a willed act? > > > dmb says: > > I'm saying that responding to DQ can't rightly be described as unconscious or > involuntary. I'm saying there is a good reason why we can't rightly talk > about motorcycle repair as an involuntary action nor do we write essays > unconsciously. And I'm suggesting there are better better terms to describe > what it means to respond to DQ.
Dan: I tend to disagree with you that the beginning response to Dynamic Quality cannot rightly be called involuntary or unconscious. What else could it be? What you seem to be pointing to is what happens later... after we've identified what it is we're responding to. dmb: > Pirsig main point in using the hot stove example, I think, is to show that DQ > is not a metaphysical abstraction but a concrete empirical reality. Dan: I would say that Dynamic Quality only becomes concrete empirical reality afterwards, and then "it" is no longer Dynamic Quality. If you drop the two identifiers and say Dynamic Quality is synonymous with reality, then I would tend to agree with you here. I see you trying to box it in... to make Dynamic Quality into something, when instead it is better to say it is not this, not that. dmb: He's saying the mystics will get off the stove first because they tend to be in closer contact with that pre-conceptual flux of life. For James and Pirsig, that's reality and the concepts that follow are only good to the extent that they successfully operate in that reality, in the flux of life. Dan: Now... we agree. Thank you, Dan 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
