Hi Matt and All, Imho Part of the problem in communicating ideas is that words are being redefined. Quality moves from an adjective to a noun. Good also is conceptualized in both categories. To aid communication, a vocabulary has to be established of SOM and MOQ. Is the definition or description for "evolution" to be or not to be?
The biggest stumbling block to that vocabulary is evolution! "Indeterminacy of DQ/degeneracy" undercuts "just knowing it." For myself "evolutionary markers", "definitions" are all in the unknown, discussed bin. I suggest that "evolutionary markers" follow a pattern like the musical octave of 7 steps of varying levels as a template. At least sound and color define some definitive repeating differences. Joe On 10/6/11 11:45 AM, "Matt Kundert" <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt: > But are we not sometimes wrong about what we feel is going on in > our experience? Your answer is, roughly, that we "just know" when > we are following DQ. But the reason I've been bringing the thesis > I've dubbed the "indeterminacy of DQ/degeneracy" to bear on this > issue is because it seems to me that that idea in Pirsig undercuts > the certainty otherwise endowed to "just knowing it." 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
