Hello Marsha, Marsha said: I am looking forward to your laundry list concerning DQ, and even more to your attempt to string them together into a logical syllogism. Add my Oxford quote if you like.
Matt: I'm not sure why you're being facetious (as I take it you are being). For I'm not sure how such a project would cut against anything you are doing. But, as I said, it was a project I long ago abandoned, though I've attached below as an appendix to this post the list found in a Draft to a post for the MD that I never sent (for the list is neither complete, nor completely researched: in no way finished nor defendable as it is; just what I found). Marsha said: I also resent your "groove on it" remark. I have an advanced degree, but I'm not trying to posture as an Academic. I would think a GOOD motorcycle mechanic, or carpenter, or a musician, would be as welcome on this list as university students and university instructors. No one should be forced to speak academiceze.; well, only Chimpanzees. Matt: I take it you either didn't believe me or accept my attempt to suggest that I wasn't, in my remarks, suggesting that everyone "should be forced to speak academiceze." I used "groove on it" because the phrase was in my mind, for some reason, as being in the air here as a translation of what it's like to follow Dynamic Quality. I was using it as technical phrase, if you will, not as a mode of put-down. If you don't believe me when I say I don't think people have to read a lick of professional philosophy to produce good amateur philosophy, then there's not much more to say. If you take me to be merely posturing in front of an amateur crowd, then I wonder about my own intelligence, considering that such "posturing" has clearly never worked before, as--if I'm not mistaken--I'm almost universally regarded as the closest thing to an academic snob the MD has (or, at least, I might have the longest running tenure for being that). If you believe I'm sincere, but unsuccessful in creating a via media position for being able to value professional and amateur philosophy equally without excluding the other, then I wonder where the fault line exists in the position I wish to take. For I do, like you, want to say that amateur philosophers are not, ipso facto, "trying to posture as academics," or as I put it "merely bad academics." It appears you think, against my explicit hopes, that I've implied that charge. I'm just not sure how. Matt Appendix (from Nov. 2005): Notes Towards a List of Uses of "Dynamic Quality" 1. DQ as undefined 73 2. DQ as pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality 114, 118, 133 (as primary empirical reality (76), as ultimate reality, as direct experience (73, 112-3)) 3. DQ as betterness 132, 139 4. DQ as the good (as moral order (111, 133)) 5. DQ as telos 160 6. DQ as noun 7. DQ as change 131, 139, 165 8. DQ as weird 113, 138, 164 (new 133, 135) 9. DQ as virginity (as orgasm) 74 10. DQ as genesis 137 (as universal source of things (88, 133)) 12. DQ as inexpressible 13. DQ as pre-reflective 14. DQ as Romantic Quality 15. DQ as intuition 16. DQ as freedom 133, 139 (as broken 136) 17. DQ as holistic viewpoint 18. DQ as perfection 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
