[SA] It depends on where your coming from. If I'm trying to point out the holy grail of "Is this Quality?", as in, "Is this the Quality, right here, that everybody keeps talking about?", well, in the 'everything is connected context' - yes, but in the finger to rock answer, the situational one - no, that would be mu. One could come at these questions in different ways. As Matt and Ron pointed out within the last week or so, these conventional approaches and philosophical approaches and these two approaches are not cut and dry on their own, but they do overshadow each other. So, your answer to "Is this Quality?" was conventional, but then I made it philosophical. I could make it conventional too if you want. We could approach these questions in more than one way.
[Krimel] I think you are missing the point that we are able to perceive Quality in the immediate without being able to define it in general. Questions about the immediate IS, as in, Is that Quality? are specific questions about particular instances. Turning such a question into a general philosophical question makes no sense to me. There are plenty of ways to ask such general questions for example, What is Quality? [SA] And since it is "not possible to know everything" - dq - we could try to find out and answer such questions about life, if we choose, and come up with answers "to know more about anything" - sq, but we'll still "not... know everything" -dq, quesiton remains. [Krimel] I honestly don't see how DQ or SQ apply here in the slightest. [SA] Don't see what's mystical about this approach. [Krimel] Me either. [SA] woods, [Krimel] asphalt, 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/
