Denis, all
thanks for your definitions. An idea and few comments.
Here is the idea: why don't we collect all the definitions and sentences about Quality (expect Pirsig's)?
We have already two definitions and one sentence:
DEFINITIONS:
<<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>>.
(Foldop)
<<Quality : phil. Way of being, perceptible and unmesureable aspect of things
(one of the fundamental categories of being)>> .
(Le Petit Robert)
SENTENCES:
<<Scientific research begins with perceptible quality [...] and ends up with quantity>>
(Sartre).
Other statements to offer, MD people?
==================
My comments:
Denis, the two statements you provided *seem* closer to the MOQ. The Foldop definition (derived from the ISO norms) splits Quality into subjects and objects, and it is *the wrong map* so to say, but at least does not forget the subject.
OTOH, it seems to me that both Le Petit Robert and Sartre are merely putting Quality as an aspect of the object. Even that *way of being* is IMO onto the same position. Forgetting the subjective aspect they don't make a good job. This map is not only wrong, it's incomplete.
> The FOLDOP definition is very much a pragmatic anglo-saxon
> approach to the problems of Quality. I find typical this
> trivialisation of philosophy to the needs of the market,
> and while I do understand the need for philosophy to
> come out of the academe, I would rather have it in the
> individual way popularized by RMP in ZAMM than by
> prostituting it to the marketplace.
Well, is that bad to have a pragmatic approach? Isn't the MOQ a descendant of the Anglo-Saxon pragmatism? Anyway, I also do prefer the RMP way to popularize the MOQ, but this is not the point. The point is that once the Foldop compilers faced the problem of Quality definition (they did, as the definition they offer is not *exactly* like the ISO one) they could not (or did not want) find anything better than a pure SOMish definition.
Ciao,
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