[MD] Is experience just DQ?

[X]

Hello David,
 First thing on my desk that caught my eye, a pack of x-acto blades.
I   dont use my name in the address to reduce my electronic footprint.
-Ron

David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:

>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
>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