In the ‘Of Quality‘ fragment it was explained that Quality is a scale or measure rather than an end in itself. Yet how does one define the parameters by which one recognizes qualities of quality?
It should be clarified that within the context of the word “qualities” one considers each “quality” to be a parameter by which a unit is assessed qualitatively (the English language can be a tad bit ambiguous but it is rich also 9_9).
Let us take a simple football as an example of a unit concerned. Even an item as deceptively simple as such would fall under parameters by which individuals consider it to be better or worse than other balls. An obvious requirement is for the ball to be round so as to allow it to travel further. A football also has to be of optimum weight, balance and firmness so as to be complimentary to the best quality football possible. The texture of the ball is also of importance as it needs to provide a certain amount of grip, both for better handling as well as to reduce slipping from the goal tender’s end. Even the size or durability of the ball is of importance as it changes the parameters of the game. Hence a positive performance or matching of the ball to an individual’s expectations bestow a relatively great degree of quality upon it - it is better-appreciated by the discerning player.
Of course… then one comes to the question of non-coherence in peoples’ opinion of an ideal football. Perhaps it is considered preferable to have a ball a half-inch larger in diameter. This enters into the question of objectivity and subjectivity and hence is for another time. Suffice to say for the moment that it is ultimately the individual who decides whether a unit is of relatively better or poorer quality, as determined by its performance in the requisite parameters. ^_^
Entries (RSS)