Jorge: I am inclined to say that Energy is not at
all much like DQ. Energy, as opposed to DQ, can be
precisely formulated in terms of mathematical
equations.
Ron:(from Wiki)
"In physics and other sciences, energy (from the Greek
???????, energos, "active, working")[1] is a scalar
physical quantity that is a property of objects and
systems which is conserved by nature.
Quantity is a kind of which exists as magnitude or
multitude. It is
among the basic classes of things along with QUALITY,
substance, change, and relation."
Ron:
So it's safe to say quantity is a quality.
Jorge (current): No Ron, I'm sorry to differ again; it
is not safe at all to say quantity is a quality. The
quality of the water in a bucket taken from a large
lake is the same as that of the billions of liters of
water in the lake. The quality of a book is
independent of its size or weight. I don't recall who,
but for sure was one of the old Greeks, realized a
long time ago, that quality is a property of some
thing (or ascribed to)whereas quantity is extrinsic to
it.
In any case I'm glad you brought in the quote from
Wikipedia, because it says there that energy is a
'scalar physical quantity'. Now, physical quantities
can be measured and, as such, its relations with other
measurable physical quantities "can be precisely
formulated in mathematical equations." as I said
above.
By no stretch of imagination I can figure out how
can you say the same about quality in general and
about Pirsig's DQ in particular.
Ron: (from Wiki)
Quality in everyday life and business, engineering and
manufacturing
has a pragmatic interpretation as the
non-inferiority, superiority or usefulness of
something. This is the most common interpretation of
the word.
Jorge: Agreed about being a common sense of the word.
It doesn't mean though that quality of a thing can be
determined unequivocally. The 'superiority' of a car
against another could be a judgment of maximum speed,
or the luxury of its inside, the petrol yield or its
safety. For some people one particular feature will be
more important than another. The same may be said for
a house or a fridge, and for all those things we are
supposed to buy and that the manufacturers claim that
theirs are 'superior' to others.
If, from water fittings, we move to Art or Design
or Education, the claim that something is superior to
another can seldom be substantiated; which is why we
talk of 'taste' in music, fashion or poetry. Taste is
assumed to be related to quality but since no one can
presume to be the arbiter of good or 'bad taste'
quality remains elusive (except, of course, for
professional critics).
Ron:
Strength is a quality which may be measured by
precisely formulated
mathematical equations. Quality may be measured
according to you and thus defined.
Jorge (current): I didn't quite get this "Quality may
be measured according to you" . I never said that
quality may be measured. If you meant "quality may be
measured according to each individual" (which may
differ in their judgments) then you can not put them
in relational mathematical equations(although yes in
opinion polls).
Ron: Energy is not at all much like DQ.?
Jorge(current): No, not at all 'much like DQ'. Nothing
of what you've said so far supports your claim and
most of what it's been said in this exchange refutes
it.
Ron, I fail to see why are you so insistent in
equating energy with DQ. I'd appreciate if you could
put forward your reasons for doing so. It might very
well be that I am missing something of what you've got
in mind. If you were thinking of energy in some
mystical or theological context, like the 'energos' of
the old Greeks, there would be more room for argument;
but you keep trying to equate it to energy as it is
thought of in Physics. By doing so, in my opinion as
an outsider, you are constraining DQ, the pillar of
MOQ, into a term that can be fitted into the precise
formulations of Thermodynamics, Newtonian or Quantum
Mechanics. Suppose (and I don't see how you could do
it)just suppose you succeed in your quest, in which
way you think the MOQ would be the better for it?
An entirely different path than yours is that taken
by Ian Glendinning when he writes:
(Hence in my world "quality" is pretty well equivalent
to communicable information - where information is
encoded in ever higher emergent patterns, not
reducible to the lower substrate patterns.)
One may agree or disagree with Ian's view but it has
the virtue of not enclosing quality into a rigid
formula; it leaves 'the door open' and leaves
considerable room for maneuver in the formulation of
the various terms included (comm. information,
encoding, emergent patterns etc.) In the case of
quality this flexibility and/or opaqueness is a virtue
not a drawback. If a bridge with Science may be
thought useful, the bridge could be via cybernetics.
Cybernetics (especially second-order cyb.) is far more
flexible than Thermodynamics or Mechanics and can deal
with Complexity and Ambiguity. Let's face it quality
and , particularly, DQ is complex and ambiguous.
Nothing to be ashamed of, so is the concept of Beauty
and so is the concept of God.
Some people in the 19th century were so fascinated
by the potentials of Science that tried to equate God
with a giant machine that would follow the laws of
Thermodynamics. Nice for Thermodynamics, but not so
nice for Religion which would be debased to a branch
of Physics. Your quest looks to me a bit like that.
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
