Hi Andrea,
To a certain extent, I also think that it is good to be able to *feel*
value, forgetting a rational approach to value. Actually, in the
"awareness" thread I've suggested that awareness can also be a weight
or, at least, it seems it is not completely necessary to follow DQ
was the Brujo *aware* of the outcomes?)
But then I'd say your conclusions sound a little problematic to me:
> But doing the good thing never needs
> collection of resources, because the good
> thing is, by definition, the one that you can
> do here and now.
So I guess you are going to spend here and now all your money? No, it
does not work. I'll try to find a solution:
ANDREA:
> Quality cannot be concerned with outcomes. On one hand, this is
trivial
> from a logical standpoint (if A is good because it brings B, then it
is
> B that's good).
MARCO:
Your logic works (just let me say that it's funny you tell we must
forget a rational approach, and then use logic... ).
Anyway:
a) "A brings B" is not exactly MOQ-compatible.
b) Anyway neither A nor B are good. Good is the A-to-B process.
ANDREA:
> In the MOQ, on the other hand, the good is
> immediately good here and now irrespective of everything else (future
> and outcomes included).
MARCO:
This sentence supposes the existence of a past and a future... while IMO
the MOQ states the coincidence of past, present and future in a *ever
present event*.. so the outcome is NOW, as well as the past. So it's not
a contradiction IMO to (try to) forecast the outcomes when searching for
Quality. Here is IMO the solution. Don't you think it works better?
Ciao
Marco.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
