>[Krimel] >I think you are highlighting the problem of confusing Quality and DQ. >Static and Dynamic are aspects of Quality. If we ignore this then we get >the formulation that you give. Another way of seeing this is that order is >a subset of chaos. Order arises as logical probability from all the >probabilities available. But as a practical matter is still makes sense to >distinguish between order and chaos. Same deal with dynamic and static.
[Marsha] I cannot find it, but somewhere RMP explains that the DQ of the MOQ is equivalent to the Quality of ZMM. Maybe Platt knows the location of the exact quote. [Krimel] It was in a letter to Paul Turner in response to a question about this. I remember being horrified not only at the answer itself but the off handed delivery of the response which was kinda like; well, if you want to think of it that way, why not? By conflating Quality and DQ we in effect remove Quality from the MoQ. This would give us the MoDQ. I find this to be absurb but by now it should be obvious that Pirsig has nothing to fear from me at least when it comes to regarding his pronouncements as 'authoritative'. 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/
