dmb: Saying things and having the glasses off are two different things. You keep asking about the "crazy things said by someone with the glasses off" and I keep telling you that saying things means you don't have the glasses off anymore. As soon as you start talking you've got the glasses on.
Steve: I would like to agree. Pirsig shoulod have been careful to make that distinction, but unfortunately that is not what Pirsig says. Pirsig says that when the people who "still have their glasses on" hear the statements of the one who has taken off his glasses, the ones who "still" have their glasses on "regard his statements as somewhat weird." Our disagreement is not at all about what we wish he had said. It is about the consequences of what he _did_ say. I see him as having slipped up here. You, it would seem, would prefer to look the other way. Fine. Whatever. What is important is that we agree on what he should have said if we are to read him as having dropped the appearance-reality problem. Ron: Pirsig does speak about the ability to get up and "leave the movie" that his own experience of the movie thatre in empty space frightened him, and that when he stepped off he did'nt fall but flew. Again this two-folded meaning of DQ are simply contextual by way of one explanation. DQ and following DQ. If DQ is the well spring and unintelligible, Following DQ means being aware of the movie, the glasses. It means breaking the static patterns of eternal truths. The recreation act emerges and at once an understanding, thus following DQ is considered a static knowing yet DQ itself is uninteligible. The intent seems to be to constantly destroy and recreate the self from the now of experience. Putting alot of cultural perrienal myths into perspective in Joseph Campbell terms of the monomyth and the human psyche. ... 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
