> > > dmb said to Matt, Ian and y'all: > The criticism I have in mind, however, is definitely based on the assertion > that DQ is best understood as the primary empirical reality. The problem is > not your [Matt's] failure to mention DQ often enough, of course. The problem > is characterizing DQ in such a way that it becomes trivial, inert or a > relatively meaningless factor. > > Ian replies - DQ as primary empirical reality - absolutely (who's disagreeing?). I'm trying to (help) answer a question like - so what is this primary empirical reality like then ?
So let's riff on my DQ as "pure-potential" suggestion - imagine what it's like to experiencing the world as everything it could be, rather than as pre-conceived by any number of existing static patterns. We can choose any number of metaphors we like to try to express what that might be like - but whichever metaphor we use is going to use some existing understood static pattern (in this world anyway). The metaphor will always be less than the real thing - trivial by comparison, but not trivial. The blank sheet is a bit static, I'll grant you, but it's been used by the poets since time immemorial, to contrast with the static belief that "It is written". Ian 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
