Hi Marsha and Joe, I'd disagree vehemently with the notion of unknowability applied to DQ, Marsha. It might not be definable, but you KNOW what it is. I think that is the very heart of the MoQ, right there. That immediately accessible knowability is absolutely attached to what I understand by the term "DQ".
And I guess I'd want to repeat here that I don't think it's "best explained" in any format. It's best experienced, if you ask me. Which, I note, you didn't. But then that's the way it is around here. Never know who's gonna jump in and make a comment. Invited or no. I can't exactly describe that as DQ, but I do experience it that way. Yours, John On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:40 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > Mr. Pirsig stated it was unknowable, as well as indivisible and > undefinable. That would be no-thing to know and no one to > know it. As Dan said, it is best explained as what it is not. > > > Marsha > > > > On Aug 11, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote: > > > Hi Marsha, > > > > The word "unknowable" seems out of place in describing DQ, since it is a > > principle in metaphysics. This which would make metaphysics a dream > > sequence. Where's the meat? > > > > Joe > > > > On 8/10/11 11:54 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. > > > > > > ___ > > > 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 > 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
