Hi Squad,
In my second posting I will get more philosophical on you.
Reading the many postings about DQ, I realised that DQ is easily associated with 'the good' and SQ with 'the bad'. From a human-perspective, many times SQ-events are less favourable than DQ-events, and DQ is what makes your heart beat faster. But the over-all good is in Quality itself and not just DQ.
I think we must be aware of the viewpoint we choose when answering the question 'What is DQ?'. The MD-postings on this topic can be devided into the ones seeing DQ from a human-perspective and the ones about quantum fysics and space&time with a more over-all perspective.
This difference in perspective could imply that DQ can be divided as Horse implied in his beautiful post (Oct.16th.).
He wrote:
"On a closing note I think it is possible that DQ is being argued over so much
because, unlike SQ, there has never been any attempt to divide DQ. There seems
to be an assumption that there is only one angle to DQ, which I think is incorrect.
I know this isn't going to make me Mr Popular but I would suggest that an initial
division would be into Contributive and Formative DQ. The former is the
recognition of the new whilst the latter is responsible for its creation.?"
With the risk of understanding Horses division wrong, I think that Contributive SQ is what we talk about from the human-perspective, and Formative DQ is what we talk about in the more over-all perspective.
Mayby the topic of this month 'What is DQ'? is to broad, because of the many different subjects and contents of the postings. If the above makes sense, we should narrow the discussion to one of the two DQ's, what do you think?
a dutch greeting,
Walter
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST