[Craig] These are not good examples. For instance, an artist (subject) can see his building a rotisserie as an object of art. There are countless examples of low quality S/O thinking,
[Arlo] I agree with Pirsig that they are good examples. And an "artist", I'd argue, would not see such a separation, would instead feel a flow or a unity as he and the rotisserie evolved together. [Craig] MoQ thinking might always be better than S/O thinking, but it doesn't follow that S/O thinking is low quality. [Arlo] Again, I'm siding with Pirsig on that one. But I think you're focusing on "low Quality" meaning "no value". I'd take the S/O thinking that followed our history of being beholden to invisible leprechauns in the sky anyday. But we can do better. We should do better. We should not settle for a "low quality" way of thinking just because we associate it with shiny trinkets and baubles. > >just as there are countless examples of low quality MoQ thinking >(see archives). >You need an example where the low quality is BECAUSE it is >S/O thinking (i.e., where S/O thinking could not have had a >good quality result.) >MoQ thinking might always be better than S/O thinking, but it doesn't >follow that S/O thinking is low quality. >Craig >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/
