Struan and Squonk
Struan,
thanks for your answer. From it, I understand your favorite relax is to put your nose into what makes you vomit. Take care. You should spend your precious 20 minutes just playing your trumpet.
About the religious fervour I don't know, I think I'm atheist too. So it could be fervour, but probably not religious. A positive one, as it is directed to build something, while I see an equal but negative fervour in your attempts to destroy the MOQ.
Squonk,
he will not answer. They never answer. The question "What is Quality?" has perhaps no sense for them. The FOLDOP (Free On Line Dictionary Of Philosophy) reports:
<<Quality: The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs. Not to be mistaken for "degree of excellence" or "fitness for use" which meet only part of the definition>>.
It is the well known definition of Quality from the ISO8402 norm, and it means that no *academic* philosopher gives a definition for Quality.
The above definition is not bad.... but on the other hand brings to the question: is Quality in the product/service (objective) or in the needs (subjective)? Not far from Malta, in Sicily, an Italian MOQer is leading a post graduate course for Quality Managers (ISO9000, ISO14000 and so on) at the Chemistry Department of the CNR (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - National Research Council) and his program has the MOQ as first topic. He teaches that Quality creates both the needs and the products.... a point that is NOT part of the ISO norms, but it is indeed very useful. Even for Quality managers.
Please note also that, according to the above definition, Quality should not be mistaken for "degree of excellence" that is the exact contrary of what Struan writes in his "non-answer".
Ciao,
Marco
p.s.
(by the way, the Foldop does not offer any definition for "Value")
-----Messaggio Originale-----
Da: Struan Hellier
A: moq_discuss@moq.org
Data invio: luned́ 10 dicembre 2001 8.57
Oggetto: MD Struan: A response to Anthony the student
Greetings,
Given that Anthony has virtually claimed that I lied in my previous
posting, I feel a few corrections are in order as he is still being
economical with the acualite.
The 'Staff contact list' Anthony refers to takes you to the staff AND
STUDENT contacts search engine. This is clearly stated at the top of the
page (www.liv.ac.uk/x500/). When the search is complete, it does, as
Anthony suggests, read 'Anthony McWatt, Philosophy'. Anthony, however,
omits to tell you that it then states, 'Postgrad' and not 'staff' as it
does if you put a staff member in (try S. Clark, Philosophy for
example). I find it very difficult to believe that Anthony did not
notice either of these points and they are just the first in a series of
misleading statements in Anthony's latest message to the forum.
I reiterate, according to the Liverpool University Philosophy Department
website, Anthony is not a member of staff within the department of
philosophy at Liverpool University. Check out their website
(www.liv.ac.uk/philosophy/staff.html) for current staff members and you
will see that he is not listed. Not even as a part time teaching
assistant. I also know that postgraduates often do some lecturing while
studying, (I did some myself), but that does not make them members of
staff and Anthony is the first student I have ever heard of who claims
it does.
Note also that, contrary to Anthony's inventions, I did not claim that
he does not lecture at the university (indeed I pointed out that he does
and said precisely where), nor did I indicate that he might not be very
good at it. I am happy to trust the highly respected and Professor Clark
on that one.
I merely thought that some clarification was needed and am glad to see
that my appraisal was factually correct. I am also happy to agree that
Anthony is an authority on Pirsig. My point was that he is not speaking
from a POSITION of authority within an academic establishment. I stand
by that, as it is demonstrably true. I will also repeat that I consider
the evening class system at the university to be highly creditable, a
point Anthony ignores in his zeal to portray me as thinking otherwise.
How Anthony managed to take a few statements of simple fact as an ad
hominem attack I do not know and why he tries to distort those comments
and turn them into an attack on me I dare not speculate. As to my own
position, I could say that I am a secondary school teacher, except that
I am not teaching at a secondary school so it would be a lie. Far from
being a 'nasty smear', I put it to the forum that I have told nothing
but the truth. Quite why Anthony feels the need to misrepresent his
position and my comments so badly I do not know, although it seems
obvious that something very fishy is going on here. Perhaps it has
something to do with Anthony's admission that he is about to try to make
money out of some of you.
Apart from that, I am pleased to see Anthony clarify his position on
science given the clearly disparaging implications of his review. His
claim, disguised as a rhetorical question, that the majority of
scientists don't understand the problems of definition, is wrong and
insulting.
I will give specific references for philosophers who equate value with
fundamental reality when I next am at home and have my books in front of
me, (post Christmas); at the moment I am a thousand plus miles away from
them, but this:
Anthony:
"no faith is required for Quality because (as Platt is
getting at) you can not conceive of or live in a world in which nothing
is better than anything else."
seems to be an initial confusion. One cannot conceive of or live in a
world without matter. Does that mean that a leap of faith is not
required to see matter as absolute?
There is no logical connection between not being able to conceive of
life without something and that something being the fundamental ground
stuff of then universe. This, I could say, is lazy thinking and typical
of Anthony.
Finally, I didn't answer Squonk simply because his question is fatuous.
My equally fatuous response is that quality can he defined as the extent
to which excellence pertains.
Marco. No jazz as yet. As to your question of motivation - this is such
a fascinating mix of pseudo-philosophy, religious fervour, and sheer
disdain for every other way of thinking that I can't resist. It is not
as if I spend much time here, just catching up every now and then - the
website problems are obvious to anyone trying to browse after a short
time away and the postings take about 20 minutes each to compose. Call
it relaxation if you like.
Wim - if I started expounding upon my metaphysics, Horse would probably
throw me out for going against the charter. He is quite hot on it, so
long as it is not either himself or a mate breaking it. Anyway, this
isn't the place. The book is a novel about time BTW, but I don't want to
say more as yet.
Your suggested metaphysical questions all, I think, derive from the
first question. 'What does it mean to be?' encompasses everything except
that which isn't. In other words everything. It is all-pervasive and
does, as you rightly point out, lead to many more equally interesting
questions.
Struan
P.S.
RICK:
'Struan informs us that Anthony's status as a lecturer is
questionable...'
No I did not. Read it again and do not fall for the distortions of
others!
RICK:
'Had this turned out to be true (and I believe Anthony's response, has
more
put the issue to rest) it would have influenced to me to use a higher
measure of scrutiny when examining Anthony's assertions of fact in this
forum. If he cited some philosopher for a certain proposition I would be
more inclined to go look it up rather than take his word on it.'
Which is precisely why I pointed out the truth about Anthony's position.
Hopefully now that you have ascertained that I am correct by looking for
yourself, you will continue to use that higher measure of scrutiny. I
point to this comment as evidence that such exposure of rank egotism is
important. You must research what everyone tells you Rick. The Liverpool
Uni website is crystal clear and I was correct to write what I did. Do
not just fall for the most convincing post you have read to date.
Including this one.
Struan
-------------------
Struan Hellier
struan@clara.co.uk
> Greetings,
>
> Given that Anthony has virtually claimed that I lied in my previous
> posting, I feel a few corrections are in order as he is still being
> economical with the acualite.
>
> The 'Staff contact list' Anthony refers to takes you to the staff AND
> STUDENT contacts search engine. This is clearly stated at the top of the
> page (www.liv.ac.uk/x500/). When the search is complete, it does, as
> Anthony suggests, read 'Anthony McWatt, Philosophy'. Anthony, however,
> omits to tell you that it then states, 'Postgrad' and not 'staff' as it
> does if you put a staff member in (try S. Clark, Philosophy for
> example). I find it very difficult to believe that Anthony did not
> notice either of these points and they are just the first in a series of
> misleading statements in Anthony's latest message to the forum.
>
> I reiterate, according to the Liverpool University Philosophy Department
> website, Anthony is not a member of staff within the department of
> philosophy at Liverpool University. Check out their website
> (www.liv.ac.uk/philosophy/staff.html) for current staff members and you
> will see that he is not listed. Not even as a part time teaching
> assistant. I also know that postgraduates often do some lecturing while
> studying, (I did some myself), but that does not make them members of
> staff and Anthony is the first student I have ever heard of who claims
> it does.
>
> Note also that, contrary to Anthony's inventions, I did not claim that
> he does not lecture at the university (indeed I pointed out that he does
> and said precisely where), nor did I indicate that he might not be very
> good at it. I am happy to trust the highly respected and Professor Clark
> on that one.
>
> I merely thought that some clarification was needed and am glad to see
> that my appraisal was factually correct. I am also happy to agree that
> Anthony is an authority on Pirsig. My point was that he is not speaking
> from a POSITION of authority within an academic establishment. I stand
> by that, as it is demonstrably true. I will also repeat that I consider
> the evening class system at the university to be highly creditable, a
> point Anthony ignores in his zeal to portray me as thinking otherwise.
> How Anthony managed to take a few statements of simple fact as an ad
> hominem attack I do not know and why he tries to distort those comments
> and turn them into an attack on me I dare not speculate. As to my own
> position, I could say that I am a secondary school teacher, except that
> I am not teaching at a secondary school so it would be a lie. Far from
> being a 'nasty smear', I put it to the forum that I have told nothing
> but the truth. Quite why Anthony feels the need to misrepresent his
> position and my comments so badly I do not know, although it seems
> obvious that something very fishy is going on here. Perhaps it has
> something to do with Anthony's admission that he is about to try to make
> money out of some of you.
>
> Apart from that, I am pleased to see Anthony clarify his position on
> science given the clearly disparaging implications of his review. His
> claim, disguised as a rhetorical question, that the majority of
> scientists don't understand the problems of definition, is wrong and
> insulting.
>
> I will give specific references for philosophers who equate value with
> fundamental reality when I next am at home and have my books in front of
> me, (post Christmas); at the moment I am a thousand plus miles away from
> them, but this:
>
> Anthony:
> "no faith is required for Quality because (as Platt is
> getting at) you can not conceive of or live in a world in which nothing
> is better than anything else."
>
> seems to be an initial confusion. One cannot conceive of or live in a
> world without matter. Does that mean that a leap of faith is not
> required to see matter as absolute?
>
> There is no logical connection between not being able to conceive of
> life without something and that something being the fundamental ground
> stuff of then universe. This, I could say, is lazy thinking and typical
> of Anthony.
>
> Finally, I didn't answer Squonk simply because his question is fatuous.
> My equally fatuous response is that quality can he defined as the extent
> to which excellence pertains.
>
> Marco. No jazz as yet. As to your question of motivation - this is such
> a fascinating mix of pseudo-philosophy, religious fervour, and sheer
> disdain for every other way of thinking that I can't resist. It is not
> as if I spend much time here, just catching up every now and then - the
> website problems are obvious to anyone trying to browse after a short
> time away and the postings take about 20 minutes each to compose. Call
> it relaxation if you like.
>
> Wim - if I started expounding upon my metaphysics, Horse would probably
> throw me out for going against the charter. He is quite hot on it, so
> long as it is not either himself or a mate breaking it. Anyway, this
> isn't the place. The book is a novel about time BTW, but I don't want to
> say more as yet.
>
> Your suggested metaphysical questions all, I think, derive from the
> first question. 'What does it mean to be?' encompasses everything except
> that which isn't. In other words everything. It is all-pervasive and
> does, as you rightly point out, lead to many more equally interesting
> questions.
>
> Struan
>
>
> P.S.
>
> RICK:
> 'Struan informs us that Anthony's status as a lecturer is
> questionable...'
>
> No I did not. Read it again and do not fall for the distortions of
> others!
>
> RICK:
> 'Had this turned out to be true (and I believe Anthony's response, has
> more
> put the issue to rest) it would have influenced to me to use a higher
> measure of scrutiny when examining Anthony's assertions of fact in this
> forum. If he cited some philosopher for a certain proposition I would be
>
> more inclined to go look it up rather than take his word on it.'
>
> Which is precisely why I pointed out the truth about Anthony's position.
> Hopefully now that you have ascertained that I am correct by looking for
> yourself, you will continue to use that higher measure of scrutiny. I
> point to this comment as evidence that such exposure of rank egotism is
> important. You must research what everyone tells you Rick. The Liverpool
> Uni website is crystal clear and I was correct to write what I did. Do
> not just fall for the most convincing post you have read to date.
> Including this one.
>
> Struan
> -------------------
> Struan Hellier
> struan@clara.co.uk
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST