[MD] sq is not other than DQ

[Ian Glendinning]

OK Marsha, so ...

Since sq clearly is other than DQ, we have a problem.
The problem is the word "is".

All current patterns of sq probably started (evolutionary) life in DQ at source.
And in some sense the static patterns are patterns in otherwise more
or less dynamic patterns, otherwise we wouldn't recognise them as
static patterns.

Most of the undergrowth and leaf-mould in your forest of trees may
eventually end up in trees, but at any moment in time as a forrester
it's worth knowing your trees from your undergrowth. So.

I might say DQ is the source of all sq perhaps ? (about becoming
rather than being, unsurprisingly, given the words dynamic and
static). But for me this semantic debate is really a pragmatic
question, of what you want to would do with your statement ? Apart
from annoy people who don't see the world the way you do ;-)

Like, assuming it is any value to talk about DQ and sq, the primary
division in MoQ, it is valuable to distinguish between them (as Pirsig
did). How could we do otherwise, and where's the value ?

Ian

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:01 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Re:  sq is not other than DQ
>
>
> I'm no genius, but I understand this statement as a non-affirming negative.  It is inclusive.
>
> The statement 'a forest is trees' allows for one to say:  Yes, and it is undergrowth, animals and insects too.  Where if you state that 'a forest is not other than trees' there is no allowance in the statement to point to other additional possibilities.
>
>
> So my statement is:   sq is not other than DQ.  -  The fundamental nature of sq is DQ.
>
>
> The statement precisely represents my understanding.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>