Hi Glove, Jonathan, Squad,
Somehow the discussion about DQ leaves me unsatisfied and I notice others have that too. But hey, who needs quick answers here? The month is almost to its end so I'll shed my last light on the subject.
I've thought more about the idea of dividing DQ, and I feel Glove is right in saying:
"I am unsure how to divide something which we cannot conceive of in the first place. as far as i can see, the notion of Formative and Contributive DQ is only an attempt at labeling the cutting edge of awareness."
Still, its not so much dividing I want to do, but specifying the perspective we take in discussing DQ. By sharing with the group what DQ means for you in daily life or talking about experiencing DQ in daily life, we could somehow extract some characterisations of DQ, like 'DQ is always new' or 'DQ feels exiting' (I don't know :-~). Discussing DQ in the forming of the universe will give (has given) us different insight.
Anyway, Glove writes further: "we have to remember that Dynamic Quality cannot be defined by what it is, the best we can do is say what it is not". I totally agree with this and being unsatisfied with the discussion about DQ, we could continue saying what it's not: SQ!
Therefore my proposition for next month topic (see my next post): 'What is Static Quality?'
To Jonathan: When the soccer-team you spoke about is the dutch-team, they of course have the capacity to show other teams what DQ-soccer is :-)
Walter
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST