Hi Marco,
thanks: your points are what I needed to clarify my thoughts a bit more.
> 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?
Ok, I knew this sentence was weak, that is, *very* easily misunderstood.
Let's use an example instead of confusing As and Bs, for the sake of
clarity. A very good but poor man spends his life to collect a large amount
of money, and then with the money he funds a children hospital in Africa.
Now, in linear reasoning (past-present-future sequence, cause-effect chains,
and so on) you have a good thing that, to be done, required collection of
resources. That's true, a posteriori.
Let's think, nevertheless, of the idea of immediate-perception-of-value of
DQ. When the good man was poor and began collecting the money, he had a
goal, a final cause, something he wanted to do *in the future*. If the man
is a mystic, or a MOQist (:)) he knows nevertheless that there is *no*
future, ie, that the concept of future is illusory. In fact, the 'goodness'
of a future hospital is nothing that can be immediately perceived (as MOQ
prescribes value to be defined by immediate perception). In the immediate,
the man actually feels that
*collecting money to build a hospital in Africa is the good
thing to do (now)*
The "goal" is part of the map of reality in the man's mind, not reality
itself. It can be a part of how the man attaches value to things, of course;
the reason why he feels collecting money is good *is* because he has a goal.
This relationship between (rational) expectations/projections and the
perception of value is, IMO, worth investigating in the context of MOQ. I
didn't read much about it in this list (but I didn't go through all past
postings). If it is uncovered, I think it would deserve being covered, and
wonder if you can help me state the problem in a way that everyone may
understand it :)
> 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... ).
:) Funny, yes. I don't think that's incoherent, too - it is different to
reason about how the value-assignment works, and evaluating. Here I am doing
the former; I suggest to drop rationality when doing the latter.
> 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.
Let me quickly kill point a). I agree. In context, I was emulating SOM
reasoning. I exactly meant that saying "A is good because it brings B" is
wrong, and yes, it is for various reasons, including the brings part.
For point b, let's say:
A = collect money to build a hospital
B = build a hospital
and let me make two guesses as to what you mean with b). I don't think you
mean that "good is the fact that collecting money allows you to build a
hospital". Perhaps, more likely, you're saying that "good is
collecting-money-to-build-a-hospital", and then, I agree, that's exactly
what I meant. In the immediate present (the only real time we have), it is
good to collect money with a goal; the goal is itself cannot be good until
it is a (future) *goal*. How strange does it sound... but I think we are
near the heart of the whole thing here. Building a hospital may well be a
good thing while it is accomplished; but until then, it is a (future) goal,
and you have to look for "goodness" elsewhere, in the process, or rather in
the act of doing something with that goal, because a future thing is nothing
with a value (not a thing, hence not a thing with a value). The *only* good
thing in the scenario of collecting money for... is the *fact* of collecting
money for...! What the man has here-and-now while collecting funds is that
he feels that it is good to collect money to build a hospital
(here-and-now).
> 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?
This statement of yours seems to prove, as I supposed, that we were agreeing
from the beginning. Alas, the same sentences have different meanings if you
read them within a linear-SOM frame or within a MOQ frame. Much debate and
fatigue in this forum stems (couldn't be otherwise) from the fact that each
of us tends to read the others' words assuming the SOM meaning, and its own
words assuming the MOQ meaning. :) Yes, I was in fact meaning that since
there is no past and no future, the outcome is NOW - immediate quality now.
The "outcome" in SOM-linear meaning,
what-will-happen-in-the-future-if-i-behave-like-this-now, has no relevance
to DQ because DQ does not blend with the concept of future itself. Thtat's
what my reply to Bard was meant to read like.
Ciao a tutti :)
Andrea
--
Andrea Sosio
RIM/PSPM/PPITMN
Tel. (8)9006
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
