[MD] Is experience just DQ?

[craigerb at comcast.net]

Dan:
> There is nothing wrong with saying the city of Los Angeles experiences
> an earthquake. We use the term experience in various ways. But when it
> comes to the MOQ we should strive to be as precise as possible.

Craig [previously]:
> So are you saying that when the city of Los Angeles experiences
> an earthquake, it doesn't do so in the precise MoQ sense?

Dan:
> The term 'but' acts to negate the previous sentence.

Craig [previously]:
> So you're denying that previous sentence--you're denying that "We use the term 'experience' in various ways".

Dan:
> No, Craig. I said the term 'but' negates the previous sentence.

But "We use the term 'experience' in various ways" is the previous sentence, that you're negating.

Dan:
> The city of Los Angeles isn't a sentient being and so cannot respond to Dynamic Quality as per the MOQ.

Craig [previously]:
> Do you have any support for the view that anything other than "a sentient being...cannot respond
> to Dynamic Quality as per the MOQ"?

Dan:
> Well, yes. Check out Lila. Only a living being can respond to Dynamic
> Quality. You'll have to find the quote yourself though.

As I thought, a total fabrication.
See Pirsig on iron filings valuing movement towards a magnet.
A human responds to DQ by jumping off the hot stove.  What about a pat of butter?  It doesn't jump off,
of course, but it does melt.
Consider these possibilities:
1) the butter is a sentient being responding to Dynamic Quality
2) the butter is not a sentient being, but not only sentient beings respond to Dynamic Quality
3) the butter, searching its memory, is reponding to sq 
Craig