[John]
Thus his "wider conversation" would not be called "the MoQ", he'd
term it "Qualityism". I don't agree that this is the best approach,
but I do agree that he has a good point and that the clarification of
an ambiguity is usually a good thing.
[Arlo]
Yeah, I don't necessarily think "Qualityism" is a term I'd vote for,
I don't know what is, I use it in my own thoughts to group together
all the voices that are within what I see as the basic MOQ framework,
but have branched out due to some disagreement or extension
somewhere. I certainly don't think we need to formalize any term, but
like you said I am just trying to tease apart two distinct ways of
thinking that both use the term "the MOQ" to define their approach. I
think this underscores why, for you, "the MOQ" can evolve into
something that runs contrary to Pirsig's seminal ideas, but for Dan
"the MOQ" is defined by that which does not run contrary to Pirsig's
ideas. You are both using the term "the MOQ", and arguing over who
has the valid use, in really looking at two distinct things.
But in saying this, Dan has labeled me someone who think all
interpretations are equally valid, and you have labeled me an
dogmatic authoritarianist who refuses to acknowledge any voice other
than Pirsig. I'd say this is funny, but I hope you see it kinda
proves my point.
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
