Ant McWatt (ant11@liverpool.ac.uk)
Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:30:31 +0100
On Tue, 8 Sep 1998 00:48:14 +0100 Horse
<horse@wasted.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> I don't think that what we refer to as DQ has been explored enough.
> There was a PROGRAM sometime back on the DQ/SQ split but
> the essence of DQ (IMO) failed to emerge. There was also no
> mention that DQ, like SQ, could also be subject to the scalpel,
> which I think also needs to be explored at some time..
I remember Ken saying much earlier this year that we should
all contribute a "definition" of what we think Dynamic
Quality is.
There is no point discussing secondary issues (such as
free-will and determinism) if we don't have a good grasp of
the foundations of the MOQ. I know that to find the
essence of DQ is difficult, maybe impossible, but I'd
certainly like to explore it in some more depth (sooner
rather than later).
Best Wishes,
Ant.
> "Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
> It was what got written down.
> It was as simple as that!"
> Sir Sam Vimes.
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:46 CEST