From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Oct 29 2004 - 23:40:27 BST
Hi Erin,
I don't want to leave you with the impression that I've dismissed
your question; I'm just not sure what question you are talking about.
Let me recap: The question of whether or not Quality exists is
demonstrated affirmative any time any one makes a Quality judgment;
it doesn't matter whether it's the wall-guy's decision or the
painting-person's. So I thought that question was settled.
But then comes the next question: Why do people sometimes disagree
about the objects in which Quality resides? I suggested that this
might be because they bring to their evaluations different bases of
experience, but that these bases may be broadened (on both sides) by
engaging in an honest exchange of ideas and experience, perhaps
resulting in a closing of the gap between their quality judgements.
The example you offer of Erin and the Scientist doesn't show an
honest exchange of ideas and experiences, as neither person makes an
attempt to share why they make the judgements they do.
Anyway, sorry if I seemed overly sensitive. I have to be stingy with
my time and energy, and I was getting the idea that you weren't
spending as much energy reading my posts as I was in writing them.
Just a cost-benefit analysis kinda thing...
I've enjoyed our discussion very much.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
On 29 Oct 2004 at 13:21, Erin wrote:
But the example was just a bare wall and instead of answering my
question theexample changeto having magnificent ripples and
stainsthat made it 'found art"
Sorry if you felt that I dismissed your example, but by changing the
example, didn't you dismiss my question.
Erin
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.
Best,
msh
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 c! alling 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
ground
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
mu.
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutio! ns for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
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 -
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 : Sat Oct 30 2004 - 00:05:39 BST