From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 14:37:03 BST
Hi Johnny,
As may have been apparent from other conversations, I have much sympathy
with your arguments about the importance of SQ patterns.
One query. You said:
> Yes, 'newness' identifies DQ, but that is because DQ is conventionally
> defined as 'newness'. It is the 'good changes' that happened or are
desired
> to happen. Existing SQ is what creates the desire for a change, and what
> decides if a change is good or not, and therefore defines what is DQ. If
> SQ were weakened to the point of impotence, if there were no static
quality,
> there would be no desire for change or defintion of good to identify any
> change as DQ, if there were any changes at all. If there were zero static
> patterns, there could be no dynamic changes, good or bad. And as SQ is
> maligned and denigrated, it loses its strength, and DQ is therefore also
> weakened and made more 'anything goes' and meaningless.
How do you understand serendipity, in MoQ terms?
Sam
"A good objection helps one forward, a shallow objection, even if it is
valid, is wearisome." Wittgenstein
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 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 15:21:07 BST