ROGER RESPONDS AGAIN
Horse wrote:
<<<<<<
Roger I agree with you entirely that we should explore higher quality
patterns. Some of
what you say seems to parallel my own thoughts some time back on the
confusion that
exists regarding DQ. I haven't had enough time to consider your post properly
yet but I
shall do so over the next couple of days or so.
>>>>>>
Yeah, your Formative and Contributive DQ and Walter's Personal and Universal
DQ have haunted me for months. Then I read Nishida, who I am convinced was
one of Pirsig's major influences (possibly THE major influence), and his ideas
on DQ reminded me of the debate. The personal or direct experience side of DQ
is the aspect that Pirsig admits ties the MOQ to Radical Empiricism. But if
this is DQ, then "universal DQ" is a static abstraction. I think I mentioned
last week or so that I wrote a post trying to unite your ideas with Nishida's
mysticism, but I never felt comfortable enough with it to send it. Especially
since nobody else has a clue who Nishida is.
The common denominator of all these discussions though is that DQ is too
broad. I continue to suspect some of what RMP refers to as DQ is really sq,
and that sq is a pattern of DQ (it is the wake created by the cutting edge of
DQ). DQ is not patterned....it is pre pattern. But there can be a pattern to
DQ. Do you see the distinction?
In mystical/radical empiricism terms, experience is always dynamic and pre
patterned. But there can be patterns to this experience. Experience is DQ,
experience patterns are sq.
Roger
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST