Hi Matt, dmb, If experience is reality in the MOQ, then I don't see how we would ever need to worry about being in touch with reality. Likewise, if DQ is the leading edge of experience, then how is perceiving DQ something that "you" can be better or worse at? If this "you" is a set of static pattern left in the wake of DQ, then it is always in intimate contact with DQ.
One important Pirsigian usage of "DQ" is talk about being attentive to the distinction between concepts and reality, between DQ and sq, but then such "DQ talk" is always conceptual. It's sq. That's the only "trivializing" that is going on from my view. It is part of being attentive to the distinction between concepts and reality to say so. "Talk about DQ is sq" is what I think is meant by "DQ is a compliment paid after the fact." That's surely one of the ways Pirsig uses the term. When Pirsig says that sex is pure DQ, he is wielding the "compliment" usage of "DQ." It is also used as a placeholder for the conceptually unknown and some other ways distinct from the "compliment" usage that might be worth cataloging. Best, Steve 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
