> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:00 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > [Arlo]
> > Hey John. I see what you're saying, but I am now convinced the problem is
> > the
> > acronym. The "MOQ" is not a verb, it is a "metaphysics of Quality", it is
> > the
> > result of the "defining process", one undertaken infinitely and creatively,
> > but
> > IT is an artifact not a process.
> >
> >
> John:
>
> Well, we'll just have to differ then Arlo. I can't see something that is
> "undertaken infinitely and creatively" as a mere "artifact" to be pinned to
> your board and dissected, (you evil akerdemic you :)
>
> It is a process, not an artifact.
It is necessary that it is both, just not at the same time. I think Arlo
understands this, which is why he _did not_ say "mere." I take Arlo to be
trying to identify a conversational stumbling-black, one specific to this
particular universe of discourse (whatever its analogues to others), and that
to counter it in this specific context, he takes it as useful to emphasize the
MoQ as "an artifact not a process." In Arlo's understanding, the cavalcade of
words that are later designated/labeled the "MoQ" are an artifact of the
processing of individuals. This distinction between what is the artifact and
what does the processing is a practical one.
Matt
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/md/archives.html
