[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

[Mark]
> 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.


And yet, coherence  needs bottomless, empty, no
boundaries:  as in no-self.  Or else  your stuck upon
coherence, or something static to only  provide
perspective.  How might I think and not think, which
does  happen?  Coherently put that together without
mentioning mu, dynamic  quality, etc...  Maybe it is
possible, and I'm not understanding what  your saying.
 
Mark: Hi SA,
Coherence is a static trail left by DQ.
This happens when the trail is good, like the trail left by a perfect  dance.
Think of it in terms of resistance: sq relationships resist Dynamic  change.
Which sq relationships are best free to Dynamic change: Coherent  ones.
 
Which sq relationships are least free to Dynamic change: Static  ones.
 
Which sq relationships loose resistance and abandon to Dynamic change:  
Chaotic ones.

[Mark]
> Personally, talk of the Dynamic worries me  because
> any old shit can be  
> called  Dynamic.


How can any old shit be dynamic, when  dynamic is
nothing?


 
Mark: It can't. That's why it worries me when people talk this  way.


[Mark]
> 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.


Coherence has its' place,  true.
 
Mark: It has its place in relationship to the static and the chaotic  perhaps.


[Mark]
> 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.


So, you haven't left dq out, hmm, not coherent,
it seems, your  choice of any old shit dq, yet,
coherent relating with dq, has coherence  being more
dynamic.  Please clarify.
 
Mark: Coherence is statically verifiable. There are well maintained  
motorcycles and these are neither static nor chaotic.
The static leave no trail, the chaotic is aesthetically unappealing. The  
coherent is aesthetically Dynamic.
I suppose the coherent may be said to be aesthetically least resistant -  you 
see coherence and merge with it in  delight.


[Mark to Arlo]  
>  Please don't stop thinking the way you do because
> you may have a better  idea 


Interesting, I guess I've probably said  this
before to somebody, anyways... 


the trees further off  shimmer,
SA
 
Mark: I hope this has been of some help SA?
Love,
Mark