Arlo said to John:
The problem I see with YOUR view :-) is that definitions are "whatever you want
them to be", can be this, can be that, who cares, hey, we don't want to be "too
static". And this is fine if you are simply grooving on Quality. But a
"Metaphysics of Quality" is an attempt to create at least a fairly stable
pattern of value describing "Quality". ...Again, process and artifact are
entwined to be dialogically inseparable. But this is the whole DQ/SQ thing in a
nutshell. What you are really saying is that the "MOQ" is DQ. And I am
saying, to that, that again you are confusing "Quality" (the undefinable) with
SQ emanations from its wake (in this case, a high-quality intellectual pattern
of value.) ... At this point I should restate too that I prefer Ant's (I think
it was his term) use of "stable patterns of value" over "static". "Static" does
imply permanence and "fixedness", where "stable" implies something that can,
and does, evolve and change.
dmb says:
I think that's just right. Static patterns are not supposed to refer to
something that's eternally fixed. In fact one of the most salient features of
the idea is their evolutionary nature. In terms of intellectual static
patterns, truth is provisional and plural. But that doesn't mean that static
means dynamic and it certainly doesn't mean that stability is a bad thing.
like I said to Steve, you don't get to decide what a word means any more than
you get to decide what a buck is worth. These forms of common currency only
work because they have a common meaning. That doesn't mean the value of a
dollar is fixed forever but if the value fluctuated from person to person it
would soon be worth nothing at all. Nobody could trust them. Nobody would trade
in them. Words are like that too. There's plenty of room to be artful and
expressive about what you want to say, of course, but if you want to be
understood by other speakers of english then you have to ... um ... be normal.
Why is this even an issue? It just seems so bloody obvious to me. Communication
of ideas is the whole game here, no? That means using the language properly, as
it was so carefully explained in the Journal "Duh!". Perhaps you saw their
wildly controversial article titled, "Please Say What You Mean"? I've only read
the abstract, but this audacious author claims that words have r
ecognizable meanings or definitions and he even says this is an important
thing to notice about words. Can you imagine!? Where does he get the balls! I
don't who this guy thinks he is, but that's just blatant fascism. He's just a
freakin nord wazi, if you ska me.
I wish I had a huge pile of words, ten million words - in small bills. I'd take
my clothes off and roll around in them. I'd spend a few thousand on naughty
librarians and then pay my taxes with four-letter words. Yea, then I'd be
happy.
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
