[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[Heather Perella]

     [SA previously]
> 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]
> Coherence is a static trail left by DQ.

     ok

     [Mark]
> This happens when the trail is good, like the trail
> left by a perfect dance.


     ok.  I get this so far.  Without this good, then
no trail.


     [Mark]
> Think of it in terms of resistance: sq relationships
> resist Dynamic change.  
> Which sq relationships are best free to Dynamic
> change: Coherent ones.

     understandable

     [Mark]  
> Which sq relationships are least free to Dynamic
> change: Static ones.

     I understand a distinction is involved here
between coherent and static ones.  I'm sensing it. 
Yet, to use this sq relationship that is least free to
change as static ones does, in the strictest sense,
mislead that coherent ones are still static quality,
right?


     [Mark]  
> Which sq relationships loose resistance and abandon
> to Dynamic change:  
> Chaotic ones.


     ok.
     
 
> [Mark]
> It can't. That's why it worries me when people
> talk this way.


     Talk what way, referring to dynamic quality can't
be any old shit?

 
> [Mark]
> It has its place in relationship to the static
> and the chaotic perhaps.

     
     Coherence, as your applying it, seems to be in
the middle way.  Not a straight down the middle
exclude sq and dq and find a third.  What your
actually pointing out is the middle way that can
except the distinctions that relate to each other.  I
put it this way.  The distinctions of sq and dq are
the original split of quality, yet, they are still
quality, thus, relating together as quality. 
Therefore they keep their distinctions, yet, as the
code of art, dq-sq is still together as quality known
as dynamic morality.  This code of art, dq-sq
together, is what your calling coherence, but your
focusing upon sq patterns cohere, so, what of dq? 
Your stating coherence is an event of sq patterns
accepting dq, thus, the sq patterns cohere.  Is this
what your saying?
 

> [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.

     ok.  Your coherence includes what I've been
recently referring to as being stuck or latching with
dq.  Sq tries to and since we understand sq involves
numerous particulars and in general this one thing
clumped as static quality, well, the event of sq
latching upon dq would in a good way involve new sq or
maybe to put it better I could use sq latching upon dq
involves sq coherence, as sq can't latch upon dq,
thus, sq is consistently
'falling-back-upon-its'-no-self' or in other words,
cohering.  Maybe? 
 

> 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.
 
     I don't exclude dq, as your not either.  I'm
noticing coherence due to sq latching upon dq, thus,
sq 'falling-back-upon-its'-no-self'
 

> Mark: I hope this has been of some help SA?

     Yes, so far, so good, if you could please help me
clarify some points that I've typed above, I'd be
thankful.



wind still, for at least 5 days now, 
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com