[MD] The Tao of Quality - Verse 1

[Krimel]

> [Krimel]
> Well no. What are you saying. I said nothing about priority or any 
> such thing in what I wrote.

Dan:
Yes you did. Using the term 'experience' in that manner indicates there are
patterns waiting to be experienced. But according to the MOQ, experience is
primary while patterns are secondary. They arise from experience. I
explained this in a prior email to you but reading your reply it seemed
pretty obvious I was wasting my time.

[Krimel]
The statement "Biological patterns are experienced irrationally. They are
unnamed" contains no reference to temporal order. If I left some issue you
raised previously unanswered I apologize. Refresh my memory; I will try to
be more diligent and more clear in my response.

> [Krimel]
> Any sort of patterning is experienced irrationally but only becomes 
> objectionable in the MoQ sense when named. I thought that was clear in 
> what I said. It seems that you are making a big deal out of the naming 
> problem which is part of what I have been trying to address here of 
> late.

Dan:
Well, what you seem to be addressing has little to do with the MOQ, so far
as I can see. You seem to be equating irrationality with Dynamic Quality
(please feel free to correct me if I am wrong). This "naming problem"
doesn't exist if we adhere to the tenets of the MOQ. It appears to me that
you have no inclination to do so, however, which is a bit strange
considering this is a forum dedicated to it.

[Krimel]
All I said was that the irrational, as our usual mode of being, is primary,
preintellectual and undefinable. Is the problem that is doesn't match your
preconception of DQ and thus must have no bearing on the subject? Or is it
that I have characterized experience in an unorthodox way? Have you defined
DQ  so rigidly that you are certain what is and what is not the proper way
to speak of it?
The MoQ seems shot through with language problems if the reading and writing
of every sentence requires some specialized translation and negation of
impure thoughts and words. It also seems strange that someone on a forum
that espouses to be open to discussion of Pirsig's work; a place that Pirsig
has invited people to join in; where Pirsig himself says in the introduction
to your book, "But if dissenters didn't exist we would have to invent them
because no set of philosophic ideas is worth much until it is tested by
dialectical opposition." In such a place as this you feel comfortable saying
that any problem will cease to exist, " exist if we adhere to the tenets of
the MOQ." It sounds like you oppose testing "by dialectical opposition." 
Hmm, now that you mention it, that "is a bit strange." It is also strange
that you feel justified in judging ideas on the basis of your assumptions of
what someone else's inclinations are rather than what was said, especially
when it was said specifically about the MoQ.
But perhaps I have misunderstood you as well.