[MD] DQ: to define or undefine

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Krim, I realise things have moved on in 4 days, but I still say you
missed one very important point of mine.

I really am rejecting your suggestion that SQ & DQ are opposite ends
of sliding scale of mixed SQ & DQ, and that anything "undefined" as
being (in part) Quality or DQ is somehow spreading a lack of
definition (platypi) far and wide. Only if you blur what DQ is and
interpret it as anything dynamic.

The only undefined & undefinable Quality is DQ. The quality of
immediate experience.

SQ is not undefined, just variable and patterned over time, space,
context, etc, but as well defined as any intellectual interpretation
of experience permits. Saying SQ is simply more or less dynamic is
true, as per Case's little ditties, but don't confuse that with DQ.

Ian

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
> [Ian]
> (I didn't need to re-order or re-interpret Dan's words, I quoted his
> phrase verbatim "Dynamic Quality Defined is static quality".)
>
> But yes, there is no "need" for the circularity.
> The circularity is simply a "good thing" to discover however, when
> people are looking for definitions, because it confirms that it's
> definition is in fact "undefined". That's a good thing, it confirms
> our hypothesis. To define it any other way is to turn it into sq. DQ
> Defined is "NOT DQ".
>
> [Krimel]
> About all I can say here is, thanks for reminding me of something I forgot
> earlier. How does what you call "circularity" and a "good thing" differ from
> a platypus? Is the MoQ really about expanding the number of things we want
> to call "undefined"? How is that helpful or "good." I think one central
> undefined Quality is plenty. After all what good does it do to rid ourselves
> of SOM platypi if all we are doing within the MoQ is breeding platypi of our
> own?
>
> [Ian]
> (You missed my point about matters of degree .... sq is a matter of
> degree, DQ isn't. I wasn't talking about complements and unions. DQ is
> ONLY the immediate undefinable quality. The lifetime of sq definitions
> is variable, but always relatively static for some period of time. DQ
> is undefined for any period of time ever. They are qualitatively
> different things.)
>
> [Krimel]
> I didn't miss your point I just didn't expand on it. Yes SQ, is a matter of
> degree. So is DQ. In fact what you are pointing to is the fact on certain
> scales SQ really isn't any more definable than DQ. Nothing is perfectly
> static. No definition captures all that can be said about the thing defined.
> Static Quality is understood in terms of its relationship to Dynamic Quality
> just as Dynamic Quality is understood in relation to Static Quality.
> Undefined Quality produces the relationship and we experience Quality
> through or "as" that relationship.
>
> As Case once put it in his annoyingly simplistic bard-like way:
>
> Jiggle the time scale and rocks roll.
> Mountains, crumble and erode
> The fractal forms of valleys flow
> All things cleave and shatter
> Zoom in, Zoom out, refocus.
>
> Here is another bit from Case. He is nothing if not repetitive:
>
> Some things don't cleave
> They shatter
> All the pieces scatter
> Distinctions that should matter
> Turn to gray
>
> And yet
> In every spot of gray
> We see that white and black
> Still play.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>