[MD] Is experience just DQ?

[X]

(Dan had said to Dave H.)
That which is not experienced does not exist, SQ is not directly experienced therefore it does not ultimately exist.

[Ron]
That may not be the precise wording however the meaning implied remains that SQ does not
"ultimately" exist. Notice the rhetorical escape hatch placed on the term "ultimate" just in case
it comes to notice   that joining the two ideas "that which has no value does not exist"  changes the entire statement to then imply that static quality lacks value which then
begins to sound a bit contradictory in meaning and loses power in explanation on account
that it is not consistant.
But pull the rip chord and that parachute fails well I did use the term "ultimately" SQ is not
"ultimately" real.
But that is contrary to what was implied by the opening statement, that "that which is not
experienced does not exist" then jump to the conclusion that SQ does not exist by virtue
that SQ is not directly experienced however it neglects the base opening original use of the
term "value" that primary explanitory factor of all philosophy {love of wisdom} the core
meaning of all explanation (reality is composed of value every last bit.) The logical counter
is that value is experience.
Now this should cause us to re-examine our understanding of both terms value and 
experience.And here is the jump, we understand value, on a primary level therefore  it 
 should give aim at our conception of the term "experience" as the subject matter of
discussion.
Dispensing with the condescending  garbage of course, unless thats your aim.


.If its all a morality, its all aimed at betterness. experience is a moral act, rightly speaking
The counter arguement is that DQ is best concieved by what its not. But that is talking from 
the persuasion technique used for the unintitiated to philosophy. The initiated (most of  us)
are familier with the traditional core concepts rendering this counter moot in most 
discussion. Therefore what it is not is amoral and meaningless.

..