[MD] The need for quality

Sun Sep 10 19:48:49 PDT 2017

Hi all,

Once again, interesting topic.  Can quality be numerically defined?  If, in the case of Wes’s example, we are focused on the particular definition of quality whereby we are trying to reduce unexpected variances and defects, then, yes, it can be to a degree.  But can this number then be extrapolated to the capital Q “Quality”?

Here I am not so sure.  A similar argument could be made for the less scientific but likely more ubiquitous rankings for consumer goods.  In particular, those goods that score 5 stars such as the iPhone, the rolls Royce, etc are particularly interesting to think about.  Undoubtedly, these numbers are earned by way of a large number of people attesting to their quality.

However, again, can this then be extrapolated to capital Q “Quality”?

I would argue no, not fully.  The reason for this is that for each example, even six sigma, quality in those instances is determined and set by an observer or set of observers.  Those sets of observers may be triangulating or optimizing towards a shared perspective on quality, but even that is relative nonetheless.

For example, a scientist in research and development who prioritizes six sigma may never stumble upon those moments of serendipitous discovery, e.g. 3M post-it notes, the apple hitting newton, etc that their livelihood depends on.  Whereas managing deviation to six degrees is one party’s judgment of quality, it may very well be the antithesis of another’s.  The same goes for consumer good rankings.  How do we judge an iPhone or rolls Royce that is now six years old?  It was five stars at the time it was released, but is it still now five stars?  Perhaps some would judge it higher, like a finely aged wine, perhaps others would judge it lower, by way of them having obsolete features.  Thus, what was once five stars at a moment in time was only perceived as meriting five stars relative to that moment and to the congruence of values that people shared at that particular time.  It was wholly relative to the party of observers during one snapshot of time.

Take this to the most extreme and step beyond humanity.  What is high quality for humanity, i.e. a controlled ecology, mild and temperate weather, access to clean water, is wholly low quality for certain denizens of our animal kingdoms.  There is a specific reason why certain animals gravitate towards particular climates and environments.  Flies to manure.  Gators to swamps.  Pigs to mud.  Etc.  If each of those species was able to give a rankings to their respective ideal natural environments, they would surely give five stars, whereas the average human would struggle to give 1, maybe 1.5 if they were being generous.

As the one thing that both Taoism and science can agree on, one can not separate the organism from its environment.  One loses its meaning without the other.  The reasons as to this are not necessarily shared between Taoism and science, but for those of us who have thought about quality, it should be clear.  Quality is the thread that ties each organism to the environment and perspective of its liking.  This thread is wholly dynamic through time as well as for each pair of organism : environment.  It is thus a dynamic quality.

Thus, any attempt to measure this quality and quantify it definitively can serve as a proxy for a group of individual’s perspective on quality and is thus completely valid as such a tool.  However, to extrapolate further from there to say those measures are thereby a proxy for capital Q “Quality” is a difficult leap of faith to make and would undoubtedly draw arguments and criticisms from those observers who didn’t share those very same perspectives.

From: Adrie Kintziger<mailto:parser666 at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 4:02 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org<mailto:moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality

Your swinging loop for betterness is not a new idea nor a crazy idea.It is
correct that they are found in elektronics, aviation., and fuzzy logic
driven Washing machines.  The entire idea however , sinks completely down
the drain of we try to aply it to philosophy.      Words and terms as
trust, love,quality not only do not Carry a numeric value,even if given
one, or added one,the machine's pendulum Will not swing back and forth, as
you are claiming, but iT Will rotate the entire circel around,if we forget
To instruct everyone on earth to use the same value's for the scale, the
max range, and the numeric value's of the words!.  even when we agree to
use a scripted protocol  and the numeric value's of love, trust and quality
worldwide, and the pendulum swings and seeks for betternes in the results,
a matematician  Can always take the result and add 1 to iT,and so Can
anyone else!, feel Free to try.  in fact the whole idea is not a usefull
idea to apply on words.Its like trying to make a cake with only numeric
ingrediënts. they do not taste Well.We are not even talking about definable
or  Indefinable. BUt stay on path in Search for betterness,you Will learn!
ADrie

Op vrijdag 8 september 2017 heeft WES STEWART <wesstt at shaw.ca> het volgende
geschreven:

> Hello Ardie, Andrew, Dan;
>
> Do not worry about anything you might have said Ardie; its all good just
> focus on your health and recovery.
>
> Pirsig talked about the static patterns of quality, and that you need
> dynamic quality in order to change these patterns.
> Deming and Shewhart, have a simple mathematical model that measures the
> current, static patterns. Both of these men
> call "static patterns", a SYSTEM that is under statistical process control
> and there is a precise numerical value that is given to them.
>
> A minimum of twenty statistical samples are taken, from this we can
> calculate, the average, standard deviation and 3 levels further out to 3
> sigma.
>
> Anything beyond sigma 3 they call "special variation", and it is
> assignable to something, this is Pirsigs "dynamic quality".
> Pirsigs "dynamic quality" is always positive however, with Shewharts chart
> it can go either way with positive or negative quality.
>
> This tool is not difficult to create, and you can make one in about 5
> minutes, to measure quality or levels of safety on a spread sheet.
> You can then embark on a path that Pirsig describes as "betterness", or as
> Deming describes as a SYSTEM that is in a state of continuous
> Improvement. Most manufacturers of cars, and planes, and some manufactures
> of trains use control charts.
>
>
>
>
> From: "Andrew Chu" <andrew.chu at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> To: "moq discuss" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org <javascript:;>>
> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 9:35:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am still here! I’ve been reading the healthy debate, it’s great to
> converse with others that think so deeply about Quality.
>
> Personally, my opinion is that you are both right! Quality is both
> unknowable and infinitely variable as well as the one true reality.
>
> It is infinitely variable and unknowable because it exists between an
> observer and observed and it varies for every pair of observer/observed in
> the universe. What one knows as high quality another may know as low, etc.
> In this sense, what one observes as reality would not be congruent with
> what another observes.
>
> That said, to Wes’s point, just because what one observes is uniquely
> distinct to you and only you, does not make it any less real or true. The
> relationship between you and everything you observe is very real. To know
> that what you see as quality in a tree, a rock, a pizza slice is not
> actually inherent in that thing, doesn’t make it ephemeral, it makes it
> more personal.
>
> Now, the fact that observations and quality can be shared amongst multiple
> observers does not necessarily make the quality in the observed more real,
> but it does improve the quality *between the observers*. It creates
> stronger relationships between observers when they have a sense of shared
> experience or point of view.
>
> Not sure if this makes sense but I found both sides making equally valid
> and true points. The beauty of Quality is that these seemingly incompatible
> viewpoints are actually nicely consistent.
>
> And wes, sure! Trying to think which pieces may be most interesting for
> you all. Two I hope you enjoy as my initial reflections on quality and the
> third I would be very interested in feedback on the framework I have been
> meditating on for a while.
>
> The Secret of In-N-Out’s Success
>
> A Lesson from Jiro
>
> The Selective Dissonance of Hateful Gods
>
> From: WES STEWART
> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:45 AM
> To: moq discuss
> Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality
>
> Hello Andrew ;
>
> I hope you are still here and would like to read some of your essays on
> quality.
>
>
> From: "WES STEWART" <wesstt at shaw.ca <javascript:;>>
> To: "moq discuss" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org <javascript:;>>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 10:15:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality
>
> Hell Dan and All;
>
> I get a lot of my philosophy of quality, not from Pirsig but from William
> Edwards Deming. It was back in the twenties when Walter Shewhart and Deming
> were searching for ways to improve the Quality of transmission lines at
> Bell Labs. They had defined Quality as a SYSTEM that is in a state of
> continuous improvement. Shewhart and Deming looked at all SYSTEMs then used
> their intellect or reason to search for ways to improve the SYSTEM.
>
> Martin Luther King also used his intellect for ways to improve the SYSTEM,
> in which he paid the ultimate price that was delivered from Biologically
> dominated human beings.
>
>
> From: "Dan Glover" <daneglover at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> To: "moq discuss" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org <javascript:;>>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 5:02:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality
>
> Wes, all,
>
> Quality exists in thought and deed. Sure. The future? No idea about
> that. I'd say there's an even chance no matter what we project the
> future to be, we'll be wrong. But even that supposition is apt to be
> mistaken. This moment so fleeting, I do my best to keep close to it
> and not worry too much about the past or bother with the future. I
> look at both as malleable, dependent upon this moment to exist.
>
> I met a couple from New Mexico while watching the eclipse last month.
> New agers. They had their crystals laid out on a prayer rug to soak in
> the energy from the eclipse and when I went to pick one up they damned
> near stroked out. Don't touch it! she hollers, like I'm about to reach
> out and stroke a live rattlesnake. Apparently my negative energy'd
> wreck havoc with the crystal. I'm the only person who has ever handled
> it, she says, as a means of apology I think. I wanted to explain to
> her that unless she dug a cave into the side of a mountain to burrow
> on her belly and extract the crystal and then polished it to a high
> sheen, odds were somebody else definitely touched the stone somewhere
> along the way, but hey.
>
> I think we many times become blind to other than that which we value.
> Like that woman with the crystal, we become defensive about the
> choices we make. We work a job we hate on account of culture informing
> us how we have to earn a living - somehow. It isn't that money is
> evil. Rather, often times we tend to overlook what we have to do in
> order to accrue it. The value of having a fine home and driving a
> shiny car obscure the feelings of remorse in how we spend our days
> earning it. Until it is too late.
>
> One of my favorite parts in ZMM is when the narrator and Chris are
> tooling down the highway in a rainstorm and the bike is slowly
> petering out 50mph 40 30 20 and as they are coasting along in a
> torrential downpour some lady is staring out her car window at them in
> horror and that's how I feel when I hear people hating on their jobs.
> Only I'm not the lady in the car, oh no. I'm the guy on the bike doing
> me some living. So there's that...
>
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:58 AM, WES STEWART <wesstt at shaw.ca
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Hello Dan;
> >
> > What did Pirsig think was more of a reality, truth or quality? The
> sophists and Plato insisted quality was and so did Pirsig, there is nothing
> vague about it. All of his students could not define it, they could also
> measure it and agree. Truth should have never usurped quality (or the good)
> as the reality, for its subject object based. Pirsig swaps things around;
> the present state is a horse and carriage, the future state is the
> automobile. Now what is the state that you would define that is in between
> them? He cannot analyze the point that is in between both, all he knows is
> that it is defined as quality. Why it should exist this ratcheting we do
> not know? The space in between the betterment is what was the cause of
> Pirsigs first breakdown. That space is undefinable, why it even exists who
> knows.
> >
> > I can say that quality exists in what Andrew thought, ask me as to the
> space in between past employer and present employer what is it? I do not
> know.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: "Dan Glover" <daneglover at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > To: "moq discuss" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org <javascript:;>>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2017 9:30:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality
> >
> > Wes, all,
> >
> > I'm unsure what you strongly disagree with. That the MOQ states there
> > is no true reality? From Lila:
> >
> > "Historically mystics have claimed that for a true understanding of
> > reality metaphysics is too "scientific." Metaphysics is not reality.
> > Metaphysics is names about reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where
> > they give you a thirty-thousand page menu and no food."
> >
> > "The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had
> > called "Quality" in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece.
> > Quality doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without
> > definition, ahead of definition. Quality is a direct experience
> > independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions."
> >
> > "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that
> > there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these
> > things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable, and know able, or
> > there isn't any metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind
> > of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside
> > definition, this means that a "Metaphysics of Quality" is essentially
> > a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity."
> >
> > A logical absurdity, yes. In this sense, Robert Pirsig defined static
> > quality but kept Dynamic Quality concept free. So no. Pirsig did not
> > define exactitude as in absolute truth. More from Lila:
> >
> > "There's a principle in physics that if a thing can't be distinguished
> > from anything else it doesn't exist. To this the Metaphysics of
> > Quality adds a second principle: if a thing has no value it isn't
> > distinguished from anything else. Then, putting the two together, a
> > thing that has no value does not exist. The thing has not created the
> > value. The value has created the thing. When it is seen that value is
> > the front edge of experience, there is no problem for empiricists
> > here. It simply restates the empiricists' belief that experience is
> > the starting point of all reality. The only problem is for a
> > subject-object metaphysics that calls itself empiricism.
> >
> > " This may sound as though a purpose of the Metaphysics of Quality is
> > to trash all subject-object thought but that's not true. Unlike
> > subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist
> > on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be
> > the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of
> > things-that which corresponds to the "objective" world-and all other
> > constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the
> > ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of
> > truths to exist.
> >
> > "Then one doesn't seek the absolute "Truth."
> >
> > "One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of
> > things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future
> > this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until
> > something better comes along. One can then examine intellectual
> > realities the same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not
> > with an effort to find out which one is the "real" painting, but
> > simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets
> > of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have
> > more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of
> > our history and current patterns of values."
> >
> > Let's stop here for now. If you are still feeling disagreeable, please
> > specify why.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 1:28 AM, WES STEWART <wesstt at shaw.ca
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> Hello Dan;
> >>
> >> I disagree strongly, Pirsig defines an exactitude, Andrew is there, he
> is making the world a better place,he is a quality thinker. Quality is the
> reality, if I can look at my twenty year old work boots or hockey skates
> that is a static pattern of quality, in 2017 we have something entirely
> different.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: "Dan Glover" <daneglover at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >> To: "moq discuss" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org <javascript:;>>
> >> Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2017 12:08:28 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [MD] The need for quality
> >>
> >> Wes, all,
> >>
> >> I'm pretty sure the MOQ says how there is no 'true' reality. I think
> >> it was John Carl who said someone developed a mirror to show a person
> >> their 'true' image. Only if you stop and consider how we view reality
> >> through the lens of our own personal history, it becomes apparent what
> >> is true for one person isn't for another.
> >>
> >> Interacting with others is not biological quality but rather social
> >> quality patterns. That isn't to say social quality is composed of
> >> biological beings, however. Rather it is the relationships existing
> >> between people which comprise social patterns. So it behooves us all
> >> to take care with who we interact no matter the circumstances.
> >>
> >> Biological quality has nothing to do with intellectual quality.
> >> Meaning and purpose are intellectual patterns which can indeed rely on
> >> comfort and money. What's the old saying? It is hard to remember how
> >> you're original intention was to drain the swamp when you're up to
> >> your ass in alligators. In other words, when a person is beset by
> >> poverty, their primary goal in life is to feed house and clothe their
> >> family. Not doing philosophy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:01 PM, WES STEWART <wesstt at shaw.ca
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> Hello Andrew and Dan,
> >>>
> >>> There are two realities that we feel. The intellectual reality and our
> biological reality. Pursig defined the only true reality, and he was right,
> you have to bring morality and classical scientific thought together. Its
> not all about the physics of bowling balls and the trajectory of a missile
> that are the only things we can measure.
> >>>
> >>> We can measure honesty, fairness, respect and kindness, its not
> subjective, and is inherent and part of our reality.
> >>>
> >>> It is difficult to build quality into ones own biological life,
> because it is highly dependent on those who surround you, the ones you
> interact with. It would be very difficult for a World War ll concentration
> camp prisoner to find meaning and purpose from his biological side, however
> it is possible that quality was found from the higher intellectual side,
> because meaning and purpose, like you have already said Andrew, does not
> rely on comfort level or money.
> >>>
> >>> Money could have easily bought your way out of a concentration camp at
> that time; according to the utmost scholar of holocaust studies Raul
> Hilberg.
> >>>
> >>
> >> http://www.danglover.com
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.danglover.com
> > 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
> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.danglover.com
> 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
> 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
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 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
>

--
parser
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