Joe, Are you saying that "sad" has no definition? Every emotion has an agreed on definition. That is what to define means, to arrive at agreement on. You do not seem to want to agree on DQ, so why keep defining it in one way or another?
I disagree, DQ can not be defined through emotions, but I will continue to follow your argument on how it can, with interest. Perhaps I will learn something. Mark On Oct 2, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve and All, > > Is there a modality revealed in the way that DQ is indefinable? I want to > talk about emotions. > > DQ emotions exist. A logical point of view DQ/SQ manifests in an > intellectual level capable of governing DQ only emotional spontaneity. > > In that way I see DQ as the emotional response to reality, always > indefinable, yet full of meaning, demanding a the need for action. > Intellectual DQ/SQ in logical precision overrides or accepts the emotional > impulse. As governor of consciousness in indefinable emotions, intellect > DQ/SQ becomes the higher level in evolution. > > Intellect manifesting through logic is a higher level than emotions. How is > logic DQ/SQ a higher manifestation than emotional reality? Emotions are > real or bogus in themselves outside of logic. I can only argue about the > object of love. No intellectual argument changes how I feel. I leave that > to the gun, physical fear. The intellectual logic DQ/SQ forces me to > reexamine my feelings for further developments creating a higher logical > environment beyond the spontaneous environment at the emotional level. > > Joe > > > On 9/30/11 7:02 AM, "Steven Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Steve: >> Given this RMP statement (and all that talk about Quality being >> undefined), dmb's objections are just the sort of objections we can >> _always_ make to what _anyone_ says about DQ. The only way to avoid >> such objections is to shut the hell up about DQ, but then of course >> dmb objects to not talking about DQ as well. But it is just absurd >> from the start for dmb to claim that he has properly grasped something >> in the name of DQ that you and I have missed given that "DQ" is (among >> other Pirsigian usages of the term) a placeholder for what is lost as >> soon as you think you have grasped it. > > > 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
