[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

[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 17-12-06: Yes. It must be said that coherent relationships are still  
static.
At this point i have often tended to jump over to a visual metaphor and say  
that coherent relationships are transparent to DQ.
In order to avoid misleading i have been careful to state that coherence  
describes DQ using sq. It's all sq. Have i been unfair  SA?


[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 17-12-06: This may be a problem simply for me to resolve? It seems  to 
me that selfish ends can be served by promoting that which isn't Dynamic  
simply by stating it is Dynamic. A form of abuse perhaps?

>  [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 17-12-06: I think you've got it.


> [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 17-12-06: I think we are closer today than we were yesterday SA, which  
is pleasing.


> 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
 
Mark 17-12-06: I've tried but here for any more questions.
Love,
Mark