>[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.
Ron: This is why I say it is important to understand the context of terminology At differing levels of discussion. The container logic paradox is just that, Meaning escaping context. It's a grammatical paradox. Thus a logical absurdity. The words we use shape how we think of Quality. Now that We understand that "limits" are tools for conception, it must be a Priority to craft the most accurate tools in the context of their use. [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'. Ron: Well, when we discuss Quality in general abstractions the terminology takes on new meaning than when we discuss it in concrete terms. A paradigm shift That I've mention before. It's when these terms conflict that confusion is wrought. This is the big Q stumbling block built into the language we use. In abstract terms DQ is Quality. In concrete terms Quality is composed of DQ and SQ explained and understood In a static context for purposes of discussion. We need to understand this if we are to move beyond it. Pirsig flips back and forth in reference to the contextual Subject matter he is addressing. Thus the ripple in contiguous Meaning from end to end. And overlap of meaning in just the conflated Way you describe. 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/ 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/
