From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Thu Oct 06 2005 - 15:18:43 BST
> Case:
> ... all you have done is verify that the confusion of Quality with DQ is
> more
> ingrained than I feared.
>
> Mark:
> Hello Case, Quality as met in ZMM is monistic.
> DQ in the MOQ is a metaphysical postulation which has
> a conceptual counterpart.
> My confusion over this matter has melted away with
> experience and i'm quite happy with it.
> Use it Case! Use it.
> Use it as a pragmatic tool and see what it can
> explain?
> If you don't like it, drop it.
[Case]
Confusion melting away with experience sounds uncomfortablly like
habituation. One can eventually adjust to the sound of fingernails on
chalkboard; perhaps even learn to like it.
> Case:
> If you were saying that Quality is content free etc. I
> would be a happy camper. I keep seeing these bizarre
> equations: Quality=This Quality=That. Any statement
> that puts an equal sign before or after Quality is
> heresy.
> Mark:
> I agree. Except, i couldn't give a fig for heresy.
> Heresy is for those who have something to get huffy
> about when you insult them.
[Case]
Strike heresy insert silly.
> Case:
> DQ is not the same as Quality.
> Mark:
> I agree.
> Case:
> DQ can be defined.
> Mark:
> Nope. DQ cannot be defined, it is concept free.
> Case:
> It is change. It is Chaos. It is motion. It is Yang.
> Mark:
> Now you're defining DQ and that's not allowed. I'm
> going to call the Police. ;)
[Case]
Book him, Dano.
> Case:
> I was getting all excited about your secondary
> ontology. Something here was finally making sense. My
> only serious objection was that it should be
> the primary ontology. But as long as this insistence
> on working with multiple undefined terms persists
> progress is unlikely.
> Mark:
> I think i see why you want secondary ontology to be
> primary. Interesting.
> An analogy may be helpful: imagine Primary sq ontology
> as a calm sea and secondary sq ontology as waves in
> the sea when the Wind gets up. The waves cannot be
> there without the primary foundation, even though the
> secondary waves are more Dynamic and cutting edge.
> The way i see it, Quality is a mystic monism.
> DQ, is the first step toward generating a
> proliferation of names for everything under the Sun,
> because DQ has its sq counterpart. The Abhidarma
> Buddhist tradition did this, and Aristotle got the
> West off to a good start with his categories.
> But now look: rather than continue this method of
> proliferating names ad infinitum, we can do something
> new; we can turn back towards DQ in the 'secondary'
> ontological sense and halt the proliferation of naming
> 'things' by drawing attention to a proliferation of
> unique experiences or excellent events.
> Along the way we meet chaos and stasis - yin and yang,
> with a 'sweet spot' in between - harmony and balance.
> Yin and yang orbit DQ in an evolutionary progression.
> DQ provides the evolutionary motivation and
> teleological goal, without it, yin and yang don't go
> anywhere.
[Case]
Call me dense if you will but I see no distinction at all between Quality
and DQ described above. I still maintain that one term or the other is
superfluous and perniciously so. I find my definition of DQ simpler, more
useful as a pragmatic tool and more consistant with the world as I see it.
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 Oct 06 2005 - 15:55:33 BST