From: Mark (mark@antelope.nildram.co.uk)
Date: Mon May 09 2005 - 23:17:25 BST
Hello ian,
Monday, May 9, 2005, 8:44:19 AM, you wrote:
ig> Mark, I certainly do not believe you have the wrong end of any stick there.
My real bother about the understanding I've developed - and I add
again that I'm in no way sure that it's correct - is that it makes the
MOQ a profoundly depressing, disempowering, hopeless viewpoint. I
presume that the MOQ doesn't apply to forms of quality which are
already directly understood, such as the "quality" of a
multiple-choice exam answer sheet as calculated by comparing given
answers with a set of predetermined correct ones.
So the implication would be that it's necessary to nail down the
"quality" of things into concrete physical terms and, if you can't do
so, then the quality is dissociated from anything that you can affect
and all you can do is hope. So for instance, you can study for your
multiple-choice exam, but there's no point practicing writing essays
or music - that's metaphysical quality, so no matter how you practice,
it's beyond your powers to exert even a slight influence on the
quality of the output!
I really, really, hope I'm wrong... (errr)
-- Best regards, Mark mailto:mark@antelope.nildram.co.uk 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 : Mon May 09 2005 - 23:21:17 BST