Hello everyone
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:55 PM, David Harding <[email protected]>wrote:
> > djh:
> >> Awesome! So you'll use a clarifier now Dan?
> >
> > Dan:
> > If you feel the need to use qualifiers, then I will assume you are still
> > trapped in your SOM prison. So yes, of course I will use such qualifiers
> > when addressing you. Are we happy now?
>
>
> Hi Dan
>
> (here we go again)
>
Hi David
Ummm, no. This will be my last post to you. I see that you are incorrigible
and any more of this nonsense is a drain on my time and resources. Perhaps
others may continue to point out your mistakes until you finally understand
them. Color me done.
>
> Dan provided this quote:
> "Turner: Is experience synonymous with Dynamic Quality, or is experience
> both Dynamic and static quality?
>
> Pirsig: Both, but it's also an SOM word that implies an experiencer and
> thing experienced, so it's not the best word to use within the MOQ. Past
> experience is always static. Present experience, within the microsecond it
> is experienced before thought takes place, is always Dynamic."
>
> djh:
> I think you've misread the Pirsig quote. He doesn't say that 'experience'
> needs to be qualified for a primarily SOM audience.
Dan:
He says "it's also an SOM word" so of course it has to be qualified in that
context. That is what I've been telling you for months. When the term
'experience' is used in the MOQ it is NOT an SOM word as it doesn't imply
an experiencer and thing experienced. That is exactly how you are using the
term. You say we experience static quality. NO!!!! Not in the MOQ!
"...it's also an SOM word that implies an experiencer and thing
experienced."
See? Whenever you claim 'we' experience static and Dynamic Quality you are
using the term as a subject--we--experiencing a thing--static and Dynamic
Quality. This is exactly what Robert Pirsig warns against and yet you do
not seem to see that. So of course we have to qualify this to an SOM
audience like you and the others here.
> He says that the term 'experience'(which he has said includes both DQ and
> sq) is best not used *"within the MOQ"* as SOM audience will presume a
> Subject and an Object when they hear the word (and thus not presume we are
> talking about experience of both DQ and sq).
>
Dan:
No again. He says it is "not the best word to use within the MOQ." And I
certainly agree. Yet if we are going to say the "MOQ starts with
experience" then we don't really have much choice, do we.
Notice that there is no mention an an experiencer in that sentence. You are
the very SOM audience Robert Pirsig is talking about. By continually
stating we experience both static quality and Dynamic Quality you are
effectively falling into the trap that he so carefully tells us to avoid.
>
> RMP then goes on to explain how experience is best used(within the MOQ) to
> align the word with either of the two MOQ concepts of static quality ('Past
> experience') and Dynamic Quality ('Present experience') to make it clear
> when we are talking about one type of experience or the other.
>
Dan:
And you do not see what I have been saying all along here? That static
quality is the past? A memory? Not 'experience' as the term is used in the
MOQ? How much more clear can that be? There are not 2 types of experiences
in the MOQ. There is experience and there is the memory of experience. But
in SOM there are many kinds of experiences.
For instance, do we not have to have a designation for our future
experience too? I mean, we as subjects experience the future too. And
what's more, don't we have to designate my experience as being separate
from your experience? What about the 6 billion other people in the world?
>From your SOM perspective each of those people have their own experiences.
So should we start qualifying our terms in that manner too?
>
> But either way I'm glad that you will now qualify your use of the word
> experience with either of these two terms :-)
>
Dan:
Well, like I said, if it makes you happy to view the MOQ from an SOM
perspective, by all means, do so. I suppose I should apologize for
attempting to open new vistas for you when you are so comfortably ensconced.
I am more than a little disappointed in you, David. I think you are capable
of understanding what I am saying but you are like a dog who has gotten
hold of a rope with his teeth and refuses to let go. I really don't see
that you have anything to be glad about but they do say ignorance is bliss.
May you find your bliss.
Dan
http://www.danglover.com
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
