From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 15:56:52 BST
Hello Wim,
It seems that what Chris has done is not
so much 'define' DQ as something more
valuable, which is to describe a place to
find DQ and provide a facet of functional
description. (We often lazily accept the
functional description as a definition, but
it is not the case, definition is denotative
at the very least and rigorously structural
at best.) Description is practical, rule of
thumb, and contextual.
To reduce DQ to a 'caged definition' is a
mistake as it reduces the manifesting
scope of what is and should be a
non-bounded notion or principle.
Does that make sense as I've described
it? Is there a better way to put it?
thanks--mel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 12:22 AM
Subject: MD Re: Non-empiricist definition of DQ
> Dear Chris,
>
> I read in your 18 Aug 2004 15:23:39 -0400 contribution a valuable idea to
> define DQ-as-goal (towards which patterns of value migrate) as
> 'yet-to-be-filled evolutionary niches. Possibilities.' Is that an
acceptable
> summary?
> It implies that DQ consists of that which doesn't exist (yet). That's
> sufficiently paradoxical to counter the MoQ dogma that DQ can't/shouldn't
be
> defined...
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> 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 Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 02 2004 - 19:16:03 BST