Hi Matt, On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:
> > 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 the 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: Interesting list. I still have it that DQ is indivisible, indefinable, and unknowable. One, though, can experience it. > > 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. Marsha: I could have been wrong. Erase. Erase. Erase... > Matt Marsha > > 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 ___ 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
