[MD] Is the MOQ static, or a static pattern?

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Arlo,



[Arlo} Okay, can you give me an example of a pattern of value that is 
'right' but is not 'useful'?

Tuukka:
No. I don't know what you mean by useful. When I spoke of usefulness, I 
only spoke metaphorically. If you did not understand the metaphor, I 
will just retact it.



Arlo:
Can you give me an example of a pattern that is 'useful' but not 'right'?

Tuukka:
Dynamic Quality - as it's not a pattern (hence, I was not "right" by 
expressing it as such), but it's useful. Want to try to express Dynamic 
Quality as a non-pattern? ;) I don't. All words about Dynamic Quality 
are wrong, but if nobody speaks of it, nobody knows it's there.



Arlo:

In fact, I'd argue that within a MOQ, 'right' would mean 'useful'.



Tuukka:

That's like saying "everything consists of Quality". I don't like to say 
that. I didn't like to tell you I'm looking for things that are right 
although not necessarily useful. It's just that every other peson comes 
to whine to me that SOQ is not useful, and you seemed like one of them. 
Bo Skutvik is the iconic example of someone who kept asking why I'm 
doing this SOQ thing, yet ignoring the answer I gave. Maybe I should 
have tried harder - but maybe that would have been irrelevant. For me, 
the usefulness of the SOQ is obvious due to a methodological advantage, 
but people tend to cry I'm a proponent of SOM if I say something they 
don't understand, so I've rather told them all kinds of bullshit instead 
of giving true but nerdy-sounding answers. I'm not proud of that, but 
don't have regrets, either. I mean, if one does not see the advantage of 
the analytic approach AT THIS LEVEL, why should I expect they'd ever 
understand that? Ecspecially when the debate gets polarized immediately 
when it starts. Few people want to think the MOQ could be so 
mathematical as I have found it to be - apparently because they feel 
that would require *them* to study mathematics in order to undestand the 
MOQ. They feel they understand the MOQ already, and that if the MOQ is 
improved, it's a threat, because then they'd have to work in order to 
understand it again.

That's silly.

Most people in the Western world believe in science and technology in 
some way or the other. Not necessarily in a metaphysical way, but in 
that science offers interesting opportunities that will change our 
lives. And PLEASE, no bullshit about THAT being SOM. We're on a mailing 
list here. E-mail was invented less than century ago. Pirsig said the 
Internet saved LILA, and the Internet was invented less that 50 years 
ago (I recall). So don't say respect of technology is SOM, if that only 
amounts to biting the hand that is feeding you.

Despite this respect and belief in science and technology, not everyone 
is required to be a scientist! The same goes for religions. Not everyone 
is required to be a priest! You can still *belong* to the movement just 
by believing in it. You don't have to understand every nuance of it 
simply in order to be a good person.

Tuukka