[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

In a message dated 16/12/2006 23:25:19 GMT Standard Time, ajb102 at psu.edu  
writes:

[Mark]
When you blend Blue and Yellow you aim at a third colour  don't  you? Well,
imagine the colour you aim at is DQ and blue and  yellow are  sq. That's
coherence: The motorcycle is just right when  the bike (blue)  and person
(yellow) are in their best relationship  (Green).

[Arlo]
You say two different things here. First you say "DQ  is the color you aim 
at",
then you say DQ is "the best  relationship".

I'd say that SQ (blue) and DQ (yellow) are the colors  you mix, and "balance"
(green) is the color you aim  at.



Hi Arlo,
 
The colour analogy was used for a painter and i hoped it may have been  
useful.
To make it work i suggested the real colour of DQ is one you have never  seen 
before - i expected a painter would find that thought appropriate.
 

I fully acknowledge your point Arlo.
In a nut shell, Pirsig uses sq/DQ to describe Quality.
Coherence uses sq to define DQ.
 
All coherences are incapable of definition, but they are, as a matter of  
truth, composed of static quality relationships. A well tuned motorcycle  can be 
scientifically distinguished from one left to rot. The moq adds the  person 
maintaining the motorcycle as part of the relationship also.
 
The advantage of leaving DQ out of it is one may use existing language  to 
talk about moving in and out of coherence. The best is full coherence while  
less than this is a shift away from coherence. A whole ontology becomes  
available which may replace talk of the Dynamic. I call this secondary moq  ontology.
Personally, talk of the Dynamic worries me because any old shit can be  
called Dynamic.
However, if one looks for coherence then something more verifiable in  static 
language becomes possible. Even language itself can be described in terms  of 
coherence; a good rhetorical piece displays coherence - all the great orators 
 display coherence - a good scientific postulate displays coherence. A good  
metaphysics too, and a good biosphere. Maybe a social organisation can be  
coherent.
 
The relationship between coherence and DQ becomes one of the coherent being  
more Dynamic.
1. The static doesn't respond to DQ much.
2. The chaotic responds too much to DQ.
3. Coherence is best, and as such is able to respond to DQ in a smooth  flow.
 
Please don't stop thinking the way you do because you may have a better  idea 
Arlo.
 
Love,
Mark