[MD] Contradiction and incoherence

[david buchanan]

dmb says:
You've only "conceded" what Pirsig says quite plainly. He not only equates DQ with James's Pure Experience, he also says that "James had chosen exactly the same words [static and dynamic] Phaedrus had used for the basic subdivision of the MOQ." 
Oddly, your "concession" quotes Pirsig when he's making a different point AND she cites the wrong chapter too. (It actually comes from the end of chapter 29.) The point and purpose of those lines is to unite James's pragmatism and radical empiricism into a single fabric.
Then there is your comment on the quote, which is distorted and incoherent in too many ways to count. It's a meaningless salad of words. Patterns of value are value and static patterns are patterned? I really do NOT see how such statements could have any intelligible meaning.
Less than zero.  

> > Marsha:
> > I would concede that pure experience is synonymous with Dynamic Quality. 
> > 
> > 
> > "Value, the pragmatic test of truth, is also the primary empirical experience. The Metaphysics of Quality says pure experience is value. Experience which is not valued is not experienced. The two are the same."
> >     (LILA, Chapter 28)
> > 
> > 
> > Marsha:
> > Here in LILA, it states that experience and value are the same.  Static patterns of value are value, and RMP states that experience and value are the same.  Seems to me it is quite reasonable to state that static patterns of value are experience, though I might classify static patterns as second-hand (patterned) experience rather than pure experience.