Re: MD Re: Non-empiricist definition of DQ

From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Sep 03 2004 - 04:22:51 BST

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: RE; MD the individual in the MOQ"

    Fair enough...thanks--mel

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:33 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Re: Non-empiricist definition of DQ

    > Dear Mel,
    >
    > Well, it definitely felt valuable to me what Chris did. And I agree that I
    > am too lazy to care about the difference between a definition and a
    > functional description. (-:
    > To the extent that DQ is described as 'possibilities', one could add
    > 'desirable possibilities', otherwise it wouldn't be 'Quality', would it?
    > This does define (i.e. limits) DQ to some extent, in that it excludes
    what's
    > thinkable but would not fit in with already existing patterns of value
    > ('impossibilities' and 'undesirable possibilities').
    > There seems to be a gliding scale between (rough) description and
    (rigorous)
    > definition.
    >
    > With friendly greetings,
    >
    > Wim
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "ml" <mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:56 PM
    > Subject: Re: MD Re: Non-empiricist definition of DQ
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 05:11:42 BST