Dan wrote previously:
"Also, I do not believe I ever said experience is DQ. That is something you said I said. No, I said in the MOQ, Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous. There is a difference and this might be the block over which you are stumbling. Or not." websters dictionary says: Synonym A word having the same meaning as another in the language. I think that is a difficult rhetorical slight of hand to pull off, saying that two words are synonymous yet they have a difference in meaning. Id say thats a stumbling block. Bullshit usually is. Like this collection of solopsic drivel: > Dan: > As I said, I am whatever you think I am or what you wish me to be. > > I have nothing to teach. Dan: >>> As I said, whatever you think I am, I am. I exist in your imagination. [Ron] Well Dave Hardings Dan must be alot nicer than the Dan whos words I read. That Dan is a prick that does not mean what he says. But lets get to the point of the matter and leave the rhetorical undulations to avoid any responsibility for what is being said alone for the moment. Dan: You insist that according to the MOQ we experience static quality. You've lifted quotes from Lila to bolster that opinion and yet you fail to see where such a notion leads: right back to subjects observing objects as primary values. Ron: Sounds and smells like a strawman Dan. If you would actually try to see Dave's point, he is only echoing Pirsig by stating that experience is divided into Static and Dynamic Qualities. The dynamic aspect holding primacy in process, which co-incides with James's "pure experience". "We constantly seek to find, in the Quality event, analogues to our previous experiences. If we didn't we'd be unable to act. ." [RMP] we would be unable to respond to DQ and responding to DQ is the process of experience. Therefore Static Quality is a necessity for an organism to respond to it's environment. Or we'd just keep sizzelin on the hot stove, no distinction, no value. Now when Pirsig expands on this initial statement, he explains that the Dynamic aspect of experience is more immediate and the Static secondary but make no mistake that he is talking about values, Dynamic and Static values. The problem for Dan IS: Now you want to say that Dynamic Quality is not this not that, it is'nt anything, DQ is indefinable and "VALUE-LESS" THEN you insist that DQ and experience are SYNONYMOUS, both terms MEAN the SAME thing, thats what synonymous means. By doing this YOU are the one failing to understand the consequences of this assertion, you are insisting that experience is value-less in a explanation that holds VALUE as the CENTER of experience! I know, I know you never said any of it, you don't exist, your not a philosopher.. I'm not disagreeing with you I'm disagreeing with the MoQ. ect...ect.. insert spineless disclaimer here. .. .. . Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
