Hi All, Why does Dan not see what I'm saying? Clearly he asks himself the same question about why I cannot see what he's saying even when I tell him and explain to him that I can… So why this disconnect?
We have had an ongoing discussion about the MOQ for a long time now and our differences *appear* to have come down to what 'experience' is. Dan insists that 'experience' is DQ and everything else after that - is not 'experience'. I have said to him time and again that experience includes *both* DQ and sq. I've produced many Pirsig quotes where RMP clearly makes a distinction between two types of experience.. Other prominent members of the forum have even made it clear that experience includes both DQ and sq aspects… Ant McWatt: "Just a small refinement but I think it would be clearer if you added the prefix "pure" to the word experience in the above paragraph as static quality patterns are a form of experience too (though a type of conceptualised/patterned experience)!" dmb: "You could say that immediate experience (DQ) and conceptualization (sq) are two phases of experience, two phases of a larger process… Pirsig and James both give the same answer and it's a pretty good one, I think…" Dan has even recently provided a quote to prove his point that experience is only DQ... But in this quote Pirsig more clearly than ever says that experience includes *both* DQ and sq.. "Turner: Is experience synonymous with Dynamic Quality, or is experience both Dynamic and static quality? Pirsig: Both.." RMP could have said - experience is only DQ - and then qualified it with everthing else that he did qualify his statement with and still made exactly the same point.. '..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.' But he didn't. He said experience is *both* Dynamic Quality and static quality. So why this disconnect from Dan? Why does Dan continue (after all the evidence to the contrary) to insist that experience is - or should be understood as - Dynamic Quality? What is it about saying that experience is *only* Dynamic Quality (and not static quality) that appeals so much to Dan? To that question - I've actually tried showing Dan that I agree with him on his most basic point about DQ being fundamental to experience - time… "Yes. You are continually pointing me towards DQ. I can see that DQ is ultimately primary experience and no thing else really exists. In fact, you are just telling me right back here what I said to you. I agree with you that DQ is primary and all that we experience. But here we are.. Looking at computer screens and typing to one another and living out our static lives, full of static things. These are static things and exist and are real and we experience them. They come from this *primary* experience(DQ) but we experience these things as well.. They are as real as rocks… or so the expression goes. In the MOQ we experience includes both DQ *and* sq. Yes sq comes from DQ but we still experience sq. This is what I'm pointing towards. An understanding of the MOQ which says that we experience DQ *and* static quality and they are both real and not illusory." djh (14/1/13) and again.. "I agree with what you write. Static quality is always after this primary experience. Yes. When we break up experience we break it up into sq and DQ. DQ is the source of sq experience.. but it is still all experience nonetheless.. I don't see why there has to be one 'true' experience. Why can't experience be both DQ and sq? Interestingly - the quality of an idea is how well it matches our experience. In this case, I think it matches our experience well to say that both DQ and sq exist and are a part of experience." djh (18/1/13) and again.. "I agree with you experience can become synonymous with DQ to the point where they are synonymous and at this point intellectual distinctions or definitions are meaningless.."djh (26/3/13) and again.."I agree with you about DQ being synonymous with experience.. But there is another opposing point of view… The language of every day life where what we experience is sq.. " djh (23/1/13) and again.. "Yes. And as I've said what feels like a million times. I *agree* with you. Ultimately all we experience is DQ to the point where experience and DQ are synonymous. But if we say that's all there is - then this discussion of ours is pointless. Why even talk if all there is - is DQ? These words of ours ruin this ultimately undefined nature of reality. It's very easy to continually disagree with someone when they start talking about static quality on this discussion board and show them how they're wrong to talk about it as what's ultimate and fundamental is DQ." djh (14/1/13) But Dan doesn't listen… He doesn't want to take the discussion any further… The only reason why Dan doesn't listen, I think, is because of what he values. If we were having a logical discussion then my agreement with him would mean that our discussion could continue further. But Dan isn't interested in taking our discussion further into the static patterns that are a part of experience… What Dan likes about the MOQ is DQ. Dan values DQ and DQ only.. *not static quality*. He is playing the role of Zen Master - pointing folks to Dynamic Quality as soon as they want to start talking about static quality experience.. But the trouble is - if all you're interested in talking about is DQ - then why are you on a philosophical discussion board? Like Marsha, the place for Dan isn't a philosophical discussion group. It's a Zen retreat… Zen Master Dan wrote: "You say we experience static quality. NO!!!! Not in the MOQ!" Dan also wrote: "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." Thanks for the discussions Dan. Rather than focusing on my logical mistakes.. I suggest looking at what I value to understand what I'm saying.. But what do I know right! 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
