Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:46:00 +0100
Hi Jonathan
You wrote:
> A horrific thought occurred to me this morning - that I may have split
> DQ into two.
>
> Then I reread Fintan's contribution and saw that he had already done it!
>
> FINTAN wrote
> >Is there some kind of special award for legitimately bringing up the
> >subject of PUBIC hair in a philosophy forum. If so, then put my name
> >down, because it impacts on the sentient v non-sentient DQ.
>
> ********************
> This is deeply offensive - to those (i.e. the Squad) who hold the unity
> of
> DQ in such high esteem.
Yeah, offensive, horrific and then some. :)
> My own thought on the possible DQ split used different language.
>
> If I find something I am looking for, DQ is the flash of recognition
> when I find it - a matching to a well-defined pattern.
I actually don't think that DQ is required in this case. It's an
intellectual quality event allright, but it needs no DQ. There are
good static pattern recognition programs that can do the same thing.
> But what about the DQ which makes us notice the dramatic or the bizarre?
> It's bizarre because it fails to match a pattern. ... or is NO pattern
> also a pattern?
As soon as you have noticed something, it means that you have already
intellectualized it, i.e. made it static. This new intellectual pattern
might not fit in any of your compartments, which makes you look again.
Aren't you confusing this realization that it doesn't fit anywhere with
DQ?
Magnus
--
"I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
N. Peart - Rush
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST