What are you, twelve-years-old?
On Jun 15, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Marsha: > > You seem not to understand the MoQ. > > Andre: > I assume this comment was directed at me because you used a fragment of my > conversation with Jan-Anders.So I'll use that as the directive. > You are correct Marsha, I will not pretend to understand anything about the > MOQ. > > Marsha: > Marsha is a flow of events, not the object of your projection. > > Andre: > Now here it gets interesting. Are you saying that "Marsha" is the MOQ? > > I assume that this is your position knowing that you have left yourself > plenty of bucket space to get yourself out of it should the need arise. > > The MOQ indeed points to, as you call them, "events". They are processes. > They are a program outlining patterns of value arranged within a evolutionary > framework. What you still do not grasp is that the MOQ is a static > intellectual pattern of value describing, from its vantage point, these > static patterns of value within an evolutionary framework. > > This makes "Marsha" a static pattern of value. "Marsha" is an evolving jungle > of static patterns of value. Yes Marsha, you are a 'flow of events' as you > claim, but this 'flow of events' is repeated, stable, and therefore to a > certain degree predictable. And I hope you understand why this is not > completely predictable. We have reached a level of sentience whereby we have > evolved choice. Choice about following static patterns or Dynamic > Quality...freedom. > > My argument in my post was simply to assert that you follow those patterns we > have come to expect from you. And you deliver! You are a static pattern of > value, following all these wonderful events one after another in predictable > ways. THAT is what the MOQ means by static patterns of value Marsha. > > I presume that you think that your 'flow' denotes Dynamic Quality. No way! > Your flow, interdependent as it is with your 'events' is that which strings > your (static) events together...and therefore is also a static response. And > your responses over the years confirm this. > > Dynamic Quality is not part of the MOQ Marsha. DQ is a static intellectual > reference. Never lose it amongst the static. Never confuse it with the static. > > The MOQ is a static intellectual pattern of value. You seem to equate > "Marsha" with the MOQ... "Marsha" as the evolving jungle of static patterns > of value, ever flowing and therefore Dynamic. Yep, you never step in the same > river twice. True. You never get up in the morning in exactly the same way. > But that is not the point. The fact that you are getting up because getting > up is better than lying down and staying where you are...that is a dynamic > quality decision. But it seems to me you are making the same mistake Bodvar > made: you are equating experience with the MOQ. > > But the MOQ is NOT experience! It is not your experience. It may point > towards it but it is not your experience. For goodness sake. It is an > intellectual representation of it. An idea. And a wonderfully high quality > idea it is. The best I have ever experienced...to take me from one flow of > events to another! > > The old adage again: DQ is NOT to be confused with sq. sq is NOT to be > confused with DQ. 'Fundamentally' they are Quality but do not confuse them. > > It's a beautiful idea though and as the man said: "...not necessarily untrue". > > ___ 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
