At 12:44 PM 12/18/2007, you wrote: >Marsha: >I understood Lila's soliloquy a little differently. I think of her as >stating that to name/define something is to kill it. To make it static >and kill off the dynamic aspects. And in this sense, it is exactly why >I do not like Bo's idea of creating a MOQ level. To confine Quality, or >DQ, to a level may make it static. It's also the reason I don't like >Ham's use of the words 'primary' and 'purpose'. To my thinking Quality >(DQ) is best left is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, and for >Bo's case, unconfined. > >Marsha, >Agreed, cultural definitions of quality kill its dynamic aspect >Especially when the cultural definitions are taken as a truth. > >The whole understanding hinges on the idea that culture creates >The individual as much as the individual creates culture. One does not >Exist without the other. >Therefore A cultural paradigm is required for any understanding of an >intellectual concept. >There fore Bo is not defining Quality, he is pointing out that we >Still view MoQ through SOM eyes no matter how much we try not to. >Or tell ourselves we are not. By saying we truly view Moq as it is >And dropping SOM we are actually commiting the same fallacy of >Taking SOM as true. >So it is best to realize that this is the condition we are in >When viewing the MoQ and important we do not succumb to the same trap >In understanding. Most of us realize this but putting our finger on it >helps in understanding what others mean in this forum. And yes perhaps >Some of us failed to notice this before. I think a large part of >The conflict Ham has with MoQ is just this SPOV, Ham is well >Steeped in traditional analytic philosophy and views MoQ concepts > >From this perspective. Quality does not hold up for him because >Outside of a cultural definition it vanishes. It loses all meaning. >He loses it in the paradigm shift. I suspect by some of the comments >Bo has made about mysticism leads me to believe that he also >Doesn't clearly see this shift and the role it plays in understanding. >-Ron
Greetings Ron, I've been out all day, and even now have only a few minutes to respond. I did not state that Bo was defining Quality. I did state that he was wanting to confine Quality. Once confined, Quality becomes available to everyone with a knife, from surgeon to butcher, to slice and dice, and it wouldn't be long before Quality was dressed up in trousers and a tie. To stick to my point, I (a constellation of interrelated static patterns of value) hold the opinion that Quality should not be placed within a MOQ Level, but left indivisible, undefinable, unknowable, and _unconfined_. I will continue to read Bo's posts with great interest. And yours also. Marsha 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
