From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 21:33:32 BST
Dear Mel,
Well, it definitely felt valuable to me what Chris did. And I agree that I
am too lazy to care about the difference between a definition and a
functional description. (-:
To the extent that DQ is described as 'possibilities', one could add
'desirable possibilities', otherwise it wouldn't be 'Quality', would it?
This does define (i.e. limits) DQ to some extent, in that it excludes what's
thinkable but would not fit in with already existing patterns of value
('impossibilities' and 'undesirable possibilities').
There seems to be a gliding scale between (rough) description and (rigorous)
definition.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
----- Original Message -----
From: "ml" <mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: MD Re: Non-empiricist definition of DQ
Hello Wim,
It seems that what Chris has done is not
so much 'define' DQ as something more
valuable, which is to describe a place to
find DQ and provide a facet of functional
description. (We often lazily accept the
functional description as a definition, but
it is not the case, definition is denotative
at the very least and rigorously structural
at best.) Description is practical, rule of
thumb, and contextual.
To reduce DQ to a 'caged definition' is a
mistake as it reduces the manifesting
scope of what is and should be a
non-bounded notion or principle.
Does that make sense as I've described
it? Is there a better way to put it?
thanks--mel
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 : Thu Sep 02 2004 - 22:13:56 BST