Tim
My general purpose is to show that it is impossible to put everything
about Quality in one single flat box. It is true that you can see
anything from a personal view, but it is also true that we can discuss
and agree what we see in common unbiased and objectively like just a
string of letters in a row without any prejudical statement. We can also
stay by counting the number of them regardless which order they come to
be sure that there is absolutely something there.
RMP's distinction of 4 levels value patterns is counting with these
three classes simultaneously. Every level has its energy volume and true
isness, its pattern and useful value. Lila's quality was based on that
she was there, she was fine but not maybe the perfect match for Bob.
Like onion shells in an abstract 3D-hypersphere made of the three
independent dichotomies.
It is impossible to connect all laws of physics into one single system
only. That is the reason why we have more than one law of thermodynamics
(there are four). So far I'm satisfied with three. At the time when you
understand this it will be much easier to solve the questions waving
through this forum. Or there will be three times more of possible
solutions....
The best way to understand hermeneutical is looking at archeologists
looking for evidence that the tales in the bible is true by finding
concrete things in the sand like Noah's Ark and such. Truth by absolute
being. You could also use a scale. The scale tell you about the weight
but nothing about the form.
In business the hermeneutical can be understood by investors trying to
evaluate if there is any real substance in a company (Enron!). Other
concentrate their analytical effort on how it is objectively organized
(pattern), the third pragmatists (subjective) are looking at its market
potential. A wice director of the board must have control over all
three. Mistakes use to be very very expensive.
Or if we should jump into economics at once: (I'll put in a motorcycle
metaphor after)
(Energy) Ben Bernanke and his friends at the Federal Reserve are trying
to better the US economy by expanding it by taking loans with future US
tax incomes as security (state bonds). They are putting future tax
incomes into the US economy of today to make it bigger and think this
will be better. Poor Obama to believe in this trap.
But profits comes from margins between seller and buyer. Right? If the
margins are getting thinner, is it the right method to expand the
economy to keep up the GDP? Thinner margins means bigger risk to fail.
(Pattern) Now what does the Germans do? They changed their way of
handling the liquidity (shorter time of paymentof bills) so that the
same small amount of money is running faster in the same period. More
buys and sells in every week. They changed the pattern instead of the
mass of money in the system. That is the secret behind Germany's
financial success. But as all the economies in the EU doesn't apply to
this pattern; Irish, Italian, Spain and Portugal, it won't work as the
people in these countries still don't want to pay their bills in time or
more often than some times per year.
(Value) So what does the Chinese leaders do? They are concentrating on
the minds of the chinese people and by manipulationg their valuations
they can command the market. Slogans in the street like "Don't buy
domestic plastic toys, sell them to the rich americans so we can take
over their dollar surplus". Do you remember the happy days of the
fifties when everybody got job and you could buy just anything you
needed, no more war and everything expressed in ads and films. That
happiness is just something else than todays black cloth of depression.
Over to the motorcycle metaphor to keep reference with ZMM:
Ben Bernankes motorcycle chokes, instead of gearing down he asks for a
bigger cylinder.
The German motorcycle is gearing down but unfortunatley the gearbox was
made in Greece.
The Chinese motorcycle is made of pure PVC, look vely nice but you can't
make it through the curve as the whole frame bends over and send you out
in the rough.
A biker with a sense of high Quality, handles his gas and gear in a
proper manner and do never ever buy a plastic toy to ride in 80 mph.
Hope you enjoy the ride.
Jan-Anders
Jan-Anders,
no, I don't think I got the picture of the mash-up. But I am still
thinking about your three dichotomies. Do you think that these three
are sufficient for classifying everything? This is kindof a dumb
question because some people argue that the classification of anything
is done entirely in the third, subjective? There was a book that I
read... not too long ago, it was the last good book I read prior to
RMP's: Personal KNowledge, towards a post-critical philosophy, by a guy
named Michael Polanyi. He argues that all knowledge is personal. I
don't know what that means exactly for your second dichotomy, the
objective pattern one. I have some thoughts, but...
anyway, I'll think about your three dichotomies, maybe I will have
something better to offer after letting it ruminate.
thanks,
Tim
P.S. hermeneutical is a new word for me, so I will have to think about
it 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/md/archives.html
