Re: MD the quality of ignoring low quality

From: jhmau (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 21:26:20 GMT

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD Making sense of it (levels)"

    > Dear all,
    >
    > Critical reactions to postings experienced as low-quality usually don't
    lead
    > to high-quality replies.
    > Critical reactions to postings experienced as high-quality sometimes lead
    to
    > high-quality replies.
    > Reactions to high-quality postings that mix criticism and endorsement
    often
    > lead to higher quality in the replies.
    > Reactions highlighting only the high-quality aspects of high-quality
    > postings are the only ones almost sure to increase the quality of this
    list.
    >
    > The word quality in the above is used consistently in a SOMish manner: as
    > attribute of objects.
    > Using the grammatical construction 'quality of' usually confuses our
    > understanding of the MoQ, in which 'Quality' is the 'substance of'
    > experience and reality.
    > MoQish 'Quality' can be further distinguished (only) in the 'stability' of
    > patterns we experience, their 'versatility' (recognizability despite
    change
    > and different circumstances) en 'dynamic' (appearance of new patterns).
    > MoQish 'Quality' is only an attribute of patterns.
    > We have to guard against confusing patterns (which can be categorized by
    > level) and objects (which can usually participate in patterns of different
    > levels). This is very difficult, because the same words that we need to
    > describe patterns can also be used to refer to objects. It is only
    possible
    > if we understand from each other that this is what we want (distinguish
    SOM
    > from MoQ and objects from patterns) and try not to misinterprete each
    other.
    >
    > MoQ as a discursive practice that can exemplify an alternative for
    > subject-object-thinking is a pattern of using 'Quality' in a MoQish way
    (as
    > described above). Lapses are inevitable, because we are used to use the
    same
    > language in a SOMish way.
    > MoQ as a real 'metaphysics' may indeed be unnecessary.
    >
    > With friendly greetings,
    >
    > Wim

    Hi Wim, and All,

    "MoQ as a real 'metaphysics' may indeed be unnecessary."

    I agree with the qualifiers you seem to put on it, but I disagree if you
    think 'abstraction' in the theory of knowledge from SOM is a necessary part
    of metaphysics of how we know. A 'metaphysics' that requires a distinction
    between dq and sq (patterns for words) is necessary.
    >
    > 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 Mar 13 2003 - 21:24:13 GMT