A note from the peanut gallery... I think the reference to 'illusion' has to do with these static patterns _presenting_ themselves as independent objects or concepts. That would be presenting themselves as inherently existing, independent of consciousness.
imho... On May 6, 2013, at 8:02 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
