Hi David
I think it is more useful to see Dynamic Quality as a balance in three
aspects, mass, pattern and value.
The betterness of anything is a question of how much, how it is and what
is the use of it.
In the case of bad quality one of these aspects have a bad value.
Too much or too less beer, wrong key, wrong bed.
Best
Jan-Anders
[email protected] wrote 2011-04-04 14.55:
Hi dmb,
The terms Dynamic and Dynamic Quality are not the same thing.
In fact both the term Dynamic and Dynamic Quality isn't even really Dynamic
Quality since both terms are a definition and thus not Dynamic Quality.
> Is this Dynamic which you speak of Dynamic Quality?
>
> dmb says:
> Yes. "The experiential flux as it is felt and lived"
> is an alternative way to say "the primary empirical reality" or "pre-intellectual
experience". DQ is the immediate flux of life or direct experience prior to the
conceptualizations and definitions we subsequently add.
If Dynamic Quality truly is prior to conceptualizations and definitions isn't
'flux of life' a definition and so not Dynamic Quality?
The reason why I've brought up this distinction is because it seems to me that
the term dynamic is being constantly confused with something static. Movement
is something which is very clearly defined. Therefore, in order to avoid all of
those strange Zen intellectual paradoxes, people are taking the easy route and
saying - 'Dynamic Quality is movement quality' - and sticking to their static
quality.
But this isn't Dynamic Quality at all. Dynamic Quality isn't any thing.
That's why it's best to say when someone asks "What is Dynamic Quality?"
"Not this, Not that."
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
