Hi Ron, I'm David - pleased to meet you. Why do you call yourself X Acto?
-David. On 02/04/2013, at 1:35 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 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
