[John]
Right. Quality is a neutral term that doesn't mean "good". It's all
just random chaotic chance.
[Arlo]
No, its competing valuations of "good", many of which have little to
do with preserving higher levels of static patterns, or preserving
those things "man" believes to be "good". Look again at my example,
the decomposition of the human body. The inorganic components are
following Quality on their level, even though this means the
dissolution of "higher" patterns. Thus, Quality is as much a force
for "creation" as it is for "destruction", as these two terms require
a specific "focus" to make sense.
When earthquakes or meteors or epidemics or wars destroy higher level
patterns, it is not the result of some "anti-Quality" force, but the
same Quality force that builds. It is, simple, lower level patterns
pursuit of Quality overcoming the same pursuit by higher levels. *WE*
may call this "destruction" for our particular focus, but for the
lower level its success, good, Quality.
[John]
I've heard it before and it makes just as little sense to me as ever.
[Arlo]
How is that *my* fault? ;-)
[John]
But you have a good day, anyway.
[Arlo]
You too.
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/
