[MD] Where does DQ end and SQ begin and SQ end and DQ begin?It's all bananas isn't it?

[MarshaV]

Dan,

To should have written:  There is unpatterned, non-dualistic experience, and that is what I was addressing.   


Thank you,

Marsha 




On Mar 1, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> We 'experience' Dynamic Quality all the time. The thing is, the term
> experience is a static quality representation of that which cannot be
> fully defined even though we define 'it' all the time.

Dah...  All words are static quality representation!  



> "In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a
> preexisting object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no
> pre-existing subject or object. Experience and Dynamic Quality become
> synonymous." [Robert Pirsig, Lila's Child]

"But with a Metaphysics of Quality the empirical experience is not an experience of 'objects.' It's an experience of value patterns produced by a number of sources, not just inorganic patterns."

     (RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 26) 

This quote is of course beyond your point, but an interesting statement to consider in regards to "experiencing" static patterns.



> So, within the context of the MOQ, to say we experience Dynamic
> Quality is a bit of a misnomer. No?

No, not in my experience.  There is unpatterned, non-dualistic experience, and that is what I was addressing.   




Marsha



> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:59 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Greetings All,
>> 
>> Just for the record, I am not confining the term 'process' to _words_.  Taste, feel, sight, smell and sound are all process too.  imho.  So I might suggest that an experience of Dynamic Quality might seem like a mental version of 'white noise'.   Nothing divisible, nothing definable and nothing knowable
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 27, 2013, at 7:41 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi David,
>>> 
>>> Perhaps experienced, but not yet processed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 27, 2013, at 5:36 PM, "David Morey" <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> If DQ is unique (patternless) it cannot be divided into anything else, it cannot be defined in relation
>>>> to anything else, but we can surely know it via experience I would suggest. What do
>>>> you think?
> 
> 



_
 
 
___