[MD] MOQ Recursion

[Matt Kundert]

> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:00 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> 
> >
> > [Arlo]
> > Hey John. I see what you're saying, but I am now convinced the problem is
> > the
> > acronym. The "MOQ" is not a verb, it is a "metaphysics of Quality", it is
> > the
> > result of the "defining process", one undertaken infinitely and creatively,
> > but
> > IT is an artifact not a process.
> >
> >
> John:
> 
> Well, we'll just have to differ then Arlo.  I can't see something that is
> "undertaken infinitely and creatively" as a mere "artifact" to be pinned to
> your board and dissected, (you evil akerdemic you :)
> 
> It is a process, not an artifact.

It is necessary that it is both, just not at the same time.  I think Arlo understands this, which is why he _did not_ say "mere."  I take Arlo to be trying to identify a conversational stumbling-black, one specific to this particular universe of discourse (whatever its analogues to others), and that to counter it in this specific context, he takes it as useful to emphasize the MoQ as "an artifact not a process."  In Arlo's understanding, the cavalcade of words that are later designated/labeled the "MoQ" are an artifact of the processing of individuals.  This distinction between what is the artifact and what does the processing is a practical one.

Matt