Re: MD On Faith

From: Erin (
Date: Fri Oct 29 2004 - 21:21:47 BST

  • Next message: Erin: "Re: MD God and the Republicans, Democrats & Others"

    But the example was just a bare wall and instead of answering my question the example change to having magnificent ripples and stains that made it 'found art"
    Sorry if you felt that I dismissed your example, but by changing the example, didn't you dismiss my question.

    Mark Steven Heyman <> wrote:

    I think your frivolous dismissal of the wall being found art only
    further convinces me that we are not communicating.

    Good luck in your exploration of Quality and the MOQ.


    On 29 Oct 2004 at 8:41, Erin wrote:

    On 28 Oct 2004 at 13:10, Erin wrote:
    msh says:
    Well here's what I said:
    "...people often fail to see the value in valuable things for a
    variety of reasons, one of the most common being discomfort with the
    unfamiliar. Though we often appear to be far apart in our value
    estimations, we need not be. If everyone's ground of experience was
    equally broad I'd expect the discrepancies to all but disappear. We
    share a common humanity, after all."
    erin: True. But in case there was a hidden implication, i don't
    think this is the reason (i.e discomfort of the unfamiliar)I don't
    like calling my experiencing the value of a painting as
    empirical.For me itis more analgous to when something "new"
    doesn't seem as good as old, e.g., the trend of calling something you
    really like"bad". Don't forget thediscomfort with the old-----
    Maybe this is the underlying reason why somebody doesn't like
    toadmit Buddhism is an old religion, discomfort with the idea that
    something oldmay be better than the new.

    msh: So one way to solve the problem might be to try to broaden our
    of experience. Maybe the person who likes the painting and the one
    who likes the wall should get together and talk it over. It may be
    that the wall guy sees walls as a kind of found art. Maybe he likes
    the texture, or values the way a certain crack ripples and spreads
    into a subtle off-color stain. Or the painting-person might point
    out some beautiful but subtle effect in the painting that the wall
    person had missed. In sharing, their bases of experience become
    broader, and their chance of quality agreement more likely.

    erin: LOL the wall is found art, you crack me up. Are you a
    salesman? politician? diplomat?
    Okay my turn to be silly and I am not only going to embrace the new
    definition of empircal but also add some more to help unify science
    and the MoQ.
    Erin and her scientist friend went to the art museum.
    Erin: I really like this painting.
    Scientist: Ugghh it is awful.
    Erin: I hypothesize that this painting has high quality. I just
    did an experiment and the results were significant. Therefore I have
    just demonstrated empirical evidence that supports my hypothesis.
    Scientist: ?????
    Erin: I have broadened the meaning of these terms.
    Scientist: whatever it is still ugly
    Erin: You have no hope of understanding the MOQ or more succinctly

    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site:
    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is 
    everything." -- Henri Poincare'
    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -
    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    MOQ.ORG  -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward  -
    MD Queries -
    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 29 2004 - 21:36:01 BST