Hi Joao,
glad to find here a "Latin" colleague... Portuguese, I guess...
you wrote:
> ------ conceptually unknown (ART)
> ------ conceptually known (SCIENCE)
> ------ conceptually coherent
I think we should avoid to split art and science. Science is (at least
can be) an art:this is IMO the SODV message. Actually, you seem to be
onto this position, as well, when you write:
>yet, I think science should contact
> with the conceptually unknown)
>
Let me know.
=================
Then you asked:
>
> It still makes sense to me to include the fluxes
> between the 4 layers in
> both directions. What's your opinion?
The flux of ... ?
=================
> How can we measure the quality (static) of an organization of value
> patterns?
>
Why should we "measure"? It sounds like ISO9001. Not a big problem, but
IMO the measure of Quality makes it a .... quantity. As Andrew Connors
writes in his essay on the forum: can you determine that Beethoven's
ninth symphony is ten percent better than his eighth?
> 1. Through the harmony between them. COESION
> 2. Through the harmony with dynamic quality. ADAPTABILITY
> 3. Through the harmony with previous static patterns. STABILITY
> 4. ...?
>
>
> to continue, I would need to know the goal of an organization of value
> patterns, but that's not very clear right now..
>
[What exactly do you mean by "organization of value patterns" ? ] The
goal... well, the goal should be just (!) *evolve towards excellence*.
Of course there are different competing goals, especially according to
the different levels of value/existence/experience.
Ciao,
Marco
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST