[MD] David M and DMB clearly disagree -what do others think?

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

Hello David M,
Dynamic Quality has no definition according to the moq.
If this is true, then DQ cannot be equated with anything, even  possibility.
In fact, if DQ has no definition, we can't talk about it at all.
 
However, we do talk about DQ and there is much said in Lila regarding DQ  
which rather gives the impression that DQ is being defined in very broad  terms.
For example, it is stated in Lila that DQ is always new.
One may say that DQ is experience par excellence.
 
The possible is experienced
Therefore, in the sense that anything is, 'new' it may be equated with  DQ.
The, 'Possible' may be as new or immediate as anything else, so the  possible 
can have an aspect of DQ.
 
dmb cannot argue against this without denying DQ, for to do so would be to  
argue that sq has no DQ.
As DQ is the essence (Robert Pirsig) of sq there can be no sq without  DQ.
 
dmb's suggestion that the possible is not part of experience is problematic  
because we all experience possibilities as dynamic static relationships: 
dreams  are possibilities. That many exotic dreams cannot be realised in inorganic, 
 biological, social or intellectual patterns does not make them unreal, and 
to do  so is to assert SOM: All dreams are as real as H2O molecules.
 
David M 1 - dmb 0
 
Love,
Mark