[MD] Is experience just DQ?

[David Harding]

Hi Ron,

I'm David - pleased to meet you. Why do you call yourself X Acto?

-David.

On 02/04/2013, at 1:35 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Dan wrote previously:
> 
> "Also, I do not believe I ever said experience is DQ. That is something you said I said. No, I said in the MOQ, Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous. There is a difference and this might be the block over which you are stumbling. Or not."
> 
> websters dictionary says:
> Synonym
> A word having the same meaning as another in the language.
>  
> I think that is a difficult rhetorical slight of hand to pull off, saying that two words are synonymous yet they have
> a difference in meaning. Id say thats a stumbling block. Bullshit usually is.
>  
>  
> Like this collection of solopsic drivel:
>  
> 
>> Dan:
>> As I said, I am whatever you think I am or what you wish me to be.
>> 
>> I have nothing to teach.
> 
> Dan:
>>>> As I said, whatever you think I am, I am. I exist in your imagination.
> 
> [Ron]
> Well Dave Hardings Dan must be alot nicer than the Dan whos words I read. That Dan
> is a prick that does not mean what he says.
> But lets get to the point of the matter and leave the rhetorical undulations to avoid any responsibility 
> for what is being said alone for the moment.
> 
> Dan:
> You insist that according to the MOQ we experience static quality. You've
> lifted quotes from Lila to bolster that opinion and yet you fail to see
> where such a notion leads: right back to subjects observing objects as
> primary values.
> 
> Ron:
> Sounds and smells like a strawman Dan. If you would actually try to see Dave's point,
> he is only echoing Pirsig by stating that experience is divided into Static and Dynamic Qualities.
> The dynamic aspect holding primacy in process, which co-incides with James's "pure experience".
> 
> "We constantly seek to find, in the Quality event,
> analogues to our previous experiences. If we didn't we'd be unable to act. ." [RMP]
> 
> we would be unable to respond to DQ and responding to DQ is the process of experience.
> Therefore Static Quality is a necessity for an organism to respond to it's environment.
> Or we'd just keep sizzelin on the hot stove, no distinction, no value.
> 
> Now when Pirsig expands on this initial statement, he explains that the Dynamic aspect of experience
> is more immediate and the Static secondary but make no mistake that he is talking about values, Dynamic
> and Static values. 
> 
> The problem for Dan IS:
> Now you want to say that Dynamic Quality is not this not that, it is'nt anything, DQ
> is indefinable and "VALUE-LESS" THEN you insist that DQ and experience are 
> SYNONYMOUS, both terms MEAN the SAME thing, thats what synonymous
> means. By doing this YOU are the one failing to understand the consequences of
> this assertion, you are insisting that experience is value-less in a explanation that
> holds VALUE as the CENTER of experience!
> 
> I know, I know you never said any of it, you don't exist, your not a philosopher..
> I'm not disagreeing with you I'm disagreeing with the MoQ. ect...ect..
> insert spineless disclaimer here.
> ..
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 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