David to Andre:
Right. But how can you even talk of DQ without referring to it? You
can't do it.
Andre:
Well David, of course you can talk of DQ by referring to it but that does not
mean you are defining it in any way, shape or form. I refer you to Anthony's
and dmb's response.
David:
From the perspective of sq, even the words Dynamic Quality are a sort of
definition.
Andre:
I have just looked up 'word' is my (Oxford) dictionary. It suggests nine
different meanings, none of which says that a word (automatically) defines
something.
I get what you are hinting at though David. It's the same thing Phaedrus
grappled with in LILA:
"By even using the term 'Quality' he had already violated the nothingness of mystic
reality. The use of the term 'Quality' sets up a pile of questions of its own that have
nothing to do with mystic reality and walks away leaving them unanswered. Even the name,
'Quality' was a kind of definition since it tended to associate mystic reality with
certain fixed and limited understandings". (LILA pp110-1)
My suggestion is that Dynamic Quality, as a MOQ referring term, is indeed
intended to leaving 'a pile of questions of its own' UNANSWERED and to
DISSOCIATE it from 'certain fixed and limited understandings'. I think, and
agree with Anthony here, that both ZMM and LILA are treating DQ in that way.
That is DQ/sq.
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
