Matt had said: > Only, I think, if "grooving," "digging," or "unstuckness" are sufficient > criteria for telling the difference between Dynamic Quality and > degeneracy. But isn't that section of Pirsig punching up the fact that > the Hippies _thought_ that their groovin' and diggin' was Dynamic, > but it turns out it was slavish to biological static patterns? And > wouldn't your description of the faith-based amount to the fact that > they _think_ they are groovin' and diggin' the Dynamic as religious > saints do, but it turns out they are slavish to social static patterns?
Dan: Yes, exactly. >Matt: > It seems to me that grooving and digging _are_ immune to > retrospective revision, but that does not also make whether one is or > is not "following DQ" so immune. I think Pirsig would agree that > acting like a heretical saint, raging against established forms, does > not a saint make. However, the even more difficult problem I am > trying to highlight is that _feeling_ like one _is_ actually a saint does > not either make one a saint. Ron: Again, I believe understanding "following DQ" as intuition helps to clarify the question. It is only apon the reflection and the rendering of the intuition intelligible are we following DQ theraputically. Accordingly intelligibilty, more specifically intelligibility of intuition,specifically our own, is the highest static good. Therefore following DQ is following the highest static good, the most general primary explanations of intuition and why Philosophy, theraputically, apllied to the now of experience concerns what is best as far as intuition. In this context to follow Philosophy is to follow DQ. Hippie, Saint or sinner ... 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
