Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:49:32 +0100
Magnus wrote:
> I really like almost every one of your hip shot FAQ answers.
> Just let me give my comments on a few. I don't think they'll
> surprise you.
>
> > Is Quality purposeful?
> > Yes. It's purpose is to be free of all static patterns.
>
> Couldn't you settle with "unconstrained by" instead of "free of". The
> "free of" sort of implies that it's independent of static patterns.
> Do you really mean that?
I see your point but would rather change the question to "Is Dynamic
Quality purposeful?" The drive to be free of static patterns is the
force
behind evolution, a key concept in the MoQ.
> > What does the MoQ say about artificial intelligence? Nothing
specifically.
> > But one can deduce that Al is the attempt of the intellectual pattern
to
> > recreate or duplicate itself in an inorganic pattern (electronic
circuits).
>
> If you put it that way, all AI research becomes futile. At least explain
> that there are other views on this issue. I honestly think that new
visitors
> can be appalled if AI is swept aside so blunt.
>
I think the answer is OK. IMO it accurately reflects the MoQ. Some new
visitors will be appalled at the MoQ in any event.
Doug:
Thanks for your kind remarks about the simplified FAQ. My understanding
of
the MoQ has been vastly improved because of your contributions to TLS.
As
you know I'm a great fan of MoQ-land, a concept you introduced and have
kept at the forefront of our deliberations, encouraging us to break free
of
Western analytical thought in order to better apprehend the Quality
idea.
Please keep reminding us of the difference between SOM and MoQ thinking.
Old habits die hard.
Platt
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:25 CEST