[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[ian glendinning]

I think that's about right Arlo.

I prefer Pirsig's "latch" metaphor for the SQ's, it reminds us that
whilst SQ's (or SPV's) mustn't unnecessarily restrict freedoms to
progress, SQ's are useful in their own right too. Balance is my
middle-name BTW ;-)

My pet additional theory for how we recognise progressive growth &
evolution in levels 3 and 4, or more precisely, the reason we have so
much difficulty debating it, is that the model is over-simplified in
prescribing just these two levels. I actually believe we have a whole
series of "onion-skins" making up the whole
socio-cultural-intellectual levels. Culture itself determines what is
"intellectual" and what is merely "social".

Ian

On 12/5/06, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Platt]
> The first principle of the MOQ is freedom from static "dictates" to allow
> DQ to flourish.
>
> [Arlo]
> I'd propose that the first principle of the MOQ is this. "That's the whole
> thing: to obtain static and Dynamic Quality simultaneously. If you don't
> have the static patterns of scientific knowledge to build upon you're back
> with the cave man. But if you don't have the freedom to change those
> patterns you're blocked from any further growth."
>
> Thus the first principle seems to me not "freedom from static dictates",
> but finding the perfect balance between "freedom" and "order" that allows
> growth (expansion within a level) and evolution (emerge and expansion of a
> higher level).
>
> Other ideas?
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>