[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

[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: Hi SA,
I'm having a problem following what you are saying here SA?
Coherence is a trace of Dynamic influence described in sq terms.
If you come across a well maintained motorcycle you can appreciate it as  
such.
This is verifiable it seems to me.




> 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: If coherence may be placed between sq and DQ then something different  
has indeed been said. You now have a new verifiable concept with which to  
explore the Dynamic.


> 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

Mark: sq can't latch DQ. sq latches sq after a Dynamic shift.
If you insist upon sq latching DQ then you're not using the moq SA.
Love,
Mark