[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[Heather Perella]

     [SA previously]
> 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?


     No, not unfair.  Coherence describing dq using
sq, that's all we can do.  As to it's all sq, I use
quality as a guide, and quality is dq and sq, so, I'm
not seeing sq as all that is.  
 

     [SA previously]
> 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?

     Empty sq, a continual emptying of sq, that is the
evolution of sq that accepts dq.  What's the
difference between the first dynamic and the second
dynamic in the above, "...which isn't Dynamic simply
by stating it is Dynamic."?  The difference I notice
is you have inferred in the secondly stated Dynamic
that it is simply stated.  The first Dynamic is the
Dynamic that you contrast in the second dynamic, for
you state, "...which isn't Dynamic..."  Thus, this
Dynamic is Dynamic, whereas the second dynamic is
missing something, and you state it is just being
stated.  The first Dynamic, though, is being stated,
too.  I guess your being careful.  You say dynamic
can't be stated, but then you state it, but then you
carefulness is due to selfish promotion, in which is a
form of abuse, you say perhaps.

  

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


     ok
 

> Mark 17-12-06: I think we are closer today than we
> were yesterday SA, which  
> is pleasing.
 
     Sure, and I haven't said anything differently,
and you haven't either.  Your questioning upon
simulant and selfish promotion is what might be called
being careful.
 

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

     I understand what coherence means, thanks.  I
call it sq latching dq: 
'sq-falling-back-upon-its'-no-self.':  code of art: 
dynamic morality:  nothing is moral:  true self.

thanks.

night with dim sunlight high in the sky,
SA

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