>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>THE Q:
>"What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of destruction,
>decay and disorder don't?"
>
>ERIN:
>I had trouble responding to the question because I got stuck on the wording.
>The question is making quality and nonquality two separate categories that we
>are supposed to compare. Quality is a matter of degree not an either-or;that
>is it is not you have it or you don't it is how much quality does something
>have. So just to appease me I am going to respond to this question instead
>"what do higher quality patterns have more of than lower quality patterns"
>
>ROG:
>The question is very imperfect, and I agree that some of the value in the
>exercise is in redoing the question (though I must admit to being surprised
>at how consistent the desire to rewrite it has been as well as how different
>the suggested revisions). I would argue though that the question can be
>interpreted as one of degree. It suggests that "higher" quality is not
>predominantly destructive, decaying and disordering. It suggests that
>something is different between high and low quality patterns, and that
>destruction, decay and disorder lean strongly to the low quality side of the
>scale. But I digress.
>
*******Erin
Do you think that evolution could bring along new levels which would be
improvements of the present high quality patterns that we have today? I can
see how you can keep it in the dichotomous argument if you limit it to the
present levels only (kind of- there are more than two levels though ya know).
To me going up the levels is a growth process and I may be too optimistic but
I think there is always room to grow.
>ERIN:
>To answer this I am going to use an analogy. Let's say I wrote a poem and
>had
>everyone interpret that poem. In choosing the highest quality interpretation
>I
>would choose the one that was closest to my intention or meaning of the poem.
>A postmodernist would argue that every interpretation has both an subjective
>and objective component to it so they are all equal(everybody gets an A ;)
>BUT
>MOQ says some interpretations have more quality. One interpretation has more
>quality than other because its meaning is closer to actual meaning of the
>poem. So a higher quality pattern is one that is closer match to what both
>patterns are trying to pattern. Make sense?
>
>ROG:
>Your particular analogy uses the term "pattern" in a particularly restrictive
>(though valid) fidelity-to-the-original-experience manner. This adds a tough
>spin to the original question, which lent itself more to issues of morality,
>behavior and pattern continuance (high quality is that which sustains the
>pattern, low quality destroys the pattern, etc). Luckily, the word
>"disorder" occurred in the original Q, and it certainly applies here. You
>are evaluating the quality of a pattern based upon its fidelity to something
>else. In this case, randomness is bad. Errors are bad, and errors are
>elements that are not ordered according to the pattern in the original. So,
>yes, your analogy does lead to disorder as being low quality.
>
*****ERIN Well good my analogy was supposed to make that point BUT it was
also making the point about degree of erros. Interpretations of the poems are
not A's or F's you would have to agree that some interpretations have more
errors than others. If you think of all the interpreations as different levels
you can see a graded nature according to how many errors or disorder there is.
So I don't think you really sufficiently answered enough to show me that it is
not a matter of degree. I think the question of good -bad quality patterns is
turning the levels into two levels. We know there are more than that and I
at least am hoping there are more.
>ERIN:
>I know this is a vague answer but it is a vague question. If you want a
>specific answer I think we have to narrow the question to a specific topic.
If
> quality is a relative term I can't encompass an answer to encompass all
>quality. On the other hand if quality isn't relative I still need to know
>what we are "patterning" to know which patterns have quality or not.
>
>ROG:
>I was using the term pattern in the generic MOQ sense of "everything can be
>defined as a pattern of values". You know?
>
****** ERIN
I do know that smartass I was just explaining why I used a poetry answer than
an answer directly to that question. Again to me the question is assuming we
are already aware of all patterns of value.
>Rog
>
>
>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
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 - 16:01:42 BST