Re: MD On Faith

From: Mark Steven Heyman (
Date: Fri Oct 29 2004 - 23:40:27 BST

  • Next message: Erin: "MD Is Buddhism a religion?"

    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.

    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
    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'

    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.

    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 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
        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 Solutio! ns 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 : Sat Oct 30 2004 - 00:05:39 BST