[MD] Replacing SOM

[Krimel]

[Krimel]
If SQ and DQ are incommensurables how is it, that in experience they are so
entwined?

[Arlo]
Yikes. You're using the terminology, but you're completely in a different
ballpark than Pirsig. Maybe that's where you want to be, maybe that works
for you, and all power to you. But when you say things like this I think
there is really no common ground between what Pirsig is saying and what you
are saying; same words but completely different discourse.

[Krimel]
I find it impossible to believe that Pirsig endorses the new MoQ
terminological shift you endorse. It utterly undoes everything he says. In
fact I take his silence on this point as clear evidence that he either does
not read this forum or does not give a shit. 
Claiming that Pirsig endorses this shift is in effect saying that since he
had done nothing for the Tao in his first book, he wrote a second for the
sole purpose of killing it dead.

[Arlo]
For Pirsig, of course, "SQ and DQ" are NOT "entwined" in experience.
Experience IS DQ. SQ is what emerges or derives FROM experience. ("Static
quality... emerges in the wake of Dynamic Quality." (LILA))

[Krimel}
What then is "wake"? Is DQ the water? The flow? Something moving through the
water to disturbing the V shaped form off the stern?
Does SQ just pop out fully solid in the passing or does it have some
intermediate soggy phase? If SQ and DQ can't be mixed how does SQ emerge?
Perhaps it has nothing to do with the wake at all, and is instead motor oil
and axel grease; the result of shoddy engine maintenance?

[Arlo]
This seems to be a point of fundamental disagreement you have with Pirsig,
maybe that's your point, and that's fine. 

[Krimel]
I quite agree there is a radical departure from Pirsig at stake here but you
are confused if you think I am the one to have made it.