hello all
i dont agree that quality = dq + sq is useful to us, and am not sure if it
is true. bear with me and i'll explain why i disagree.
i'm looking from a humanistic level rather than a philosophical one, that is
the one that seems obvious for me to look at since my reasons for starting
to think about the books was to use the ideas on quality to improve the way
i live. that's just the way i do things. anyway, back to my point. you
can see the arguments i am raising by thinking more about the buddhist
religion. here they use the idea of what is "moral" to guide them but at
the same time, meditate to find wonder in the static.
think about it this way, when you start doing something new, your mind and
soul awakens, you feel inspired to try as hard as you can to perfect
whatever the new thing is, be it a new job, learning to drive or whatever.
after a while, you know the actions and the motions required to do it and
you get bored. that which was dynamic, is now known to you and appears
static. the event has not changed, but the way you see it has. therefore
dq = sq only viewed from different eyes. philosophically, maybe quality =
dq + sq, but how is that of use to us in the way we live our lives??? why
not be more pragmatic in an approach to analyse quality?
i suppose it depends what you are looking for really.
regards
Rich.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST