Hello John,
On Aug 12, 2011, at 7:33 PM, John Carl wrote: > 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. Oh goodie, tell me what you know of DQ. Maybe we can compare experiences. Marsha > 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
