[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

[Mark]
> Get one thing absolutely clear?
> I work with the  moq.

I was thinking after I sent the last post to  you.
When I said coherence isn't MoQ, I meant to say,
thus, my mistake in  not making myself very clear,
sorry, but what I meant is Pirsig doesn't use  the
term.  Yet, this doesn't make coherence MoQ or not,
actually, it,  as you state here, works with the moq. 
I did mention, if you didn't notice,  that we are being
creative.  Being creative is exactly what the  MoQ
offers and wants.  Using coherence clears much up, and
offers  plenty useful, therefore does work with the
moq.  As I stated about sq  latching dq, this isn't how
Pirsig used the term, and thus, I thought maybe  this
might be confusing.  Yet, Pirsig defined the term, so,
in this  case, I thought the term would be helpful and
familiar for those involved in  MoQ.  Coherence works
very well actually with sq latching dq.  When  sq
latches nothing, I've stated this could be described
as  'falling-back-upon-its'-no-self'.  Yet, what is
this return: this  'falling-back-upon-its'-no-self'? 
It would appear to be coherence.  Sq  falling back upon
itself no-self, thus, sq patterns uniting,  as
blue+yellow and with no-self involved we notice -
green.   Coherence, as I see it, is this return:  is
this  'falling-back-upon-its'-no-self'.  If I may use
coherence instead, it  would be much more clear,
simple, and plain-spoken without any  loose-ends.

[Mark]  
> I don't try to do  anything which harms the moq
> because i feel it is worth  
>  getting off the ground.

ok

[Mark]
> If you want to bandy the term DQ around when it's
>  supposed to be undefined  
> then fair play - just leave me out of  it.


Then don't use the term dq if you don't like  it,
but it is plenty useful.  You use it at times.  I'm
not  understanding you here.  You use it, but fight it.
Maybe this is the  same way I understand dq, which is
I can't grasp it, but I won't let go of  it.


[Mark]
> The only thing i can do is  work with sq cos i can
> talk 'til the cows come  
> home about  it without damaging the moq.


Yet, you need dq,  too, right?


[Mark]  
> I leave DQ  experiences to myself cos that is where
> my inspiration comes   from.

And yet, you let me know dq inspires you,  that's
not keeping it to yourself.  You've describe
'something' about  dq to me, right?

[Mark]
> If you wish to piss  me about by being disingenuous,
> David 'cocksucker'  
>  Buchanan style, then please leave me alone.

I've got  to ask.  What is the matter with you?  I
haven't said one thing to  harm you, have I?  If I
have, then I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding  this
kind of talk.  I thought I was discussing coherence,
code of  art, stuckness, and etc..., but you seem to be
having a trust issue going on  that has nothing to do
with me, at least not from my intention.   
You started to talk this way in the last post,
but  after I read that last post of yours and
responded, I went on to read the gav  [MD] Men, boys,
and women, and also your rant and raving about dmb  and
somebody else, Ant maybe?  Your spilling your anger
over upon our  discussion, and I really don't think I
did anything to you, but your lashing  out at me it
seems, or testing me, or challenging me to be like
dmb, it's  really wierd.  I'm here to understand,
learn, have fun, practice quality  intellectual talk,
and all in all practice quality that life is  worth
living.  So, please, whatever is bothering you, don't
take it  out on me, but I guess I don't have to discuss
with you anymore.  I  guess I was holding out for those
insightful discussions we were having, but  maybe your
not into that anymore.  

If I can help, I'll be  here.
Peace be with you.


dark night,
SA

Hello SA,
This place is like a cult and when the cult immune system kicks in i expect  
to receive it from every direction.
I did begin to expect it from you and my guard went whizzing right  up.
I apologise for spilling all that over to this conversation. Sorry.
 
I don't over much care about this coherence idea if it confuses more than  it 
clarifies.
It would hurt me to feel i had damaged the acceptance of the moq as a good  
tool as gav puts it.
 
I try to proceed from first moq principles. sq and DQ are the first moq  
principles, and it occurs that more than one sq pattern forms a relationship of  
two sq patterns.
(To make it ultra simple, one sq could represent a motorcycle, and the  other 
a mechanic.)
This offers the possibility of that relationship being either good or  bad?
Careful consideration shows that DQ must be influencing the sq-sq  
relationship, and that influence is what the sq-sq relationship aims at.
So, we have two possabilities: sq-sq aims for DQ, or DQ influences  sq-sq
(It may be that there are millions of sq patterns in the relationship under  
consideration, but let's keep it simple.)
I called these two possabilities sq-sq tension. This tension is a dance  
around DQ but never quite getting there.
One drives evolution forward, and one drives coherence.
I produced a diagram to show this in action, and you can see it in my  essay.
Since then, i've thought about it more and came to realise that sq-sq  
relationships come in three flavours: static, coherent and chaotic. (Liverpool  
paper 2005)
That's just about it for now, apart from an even more recent look at  
cosmology in these terms which is in a forum post. I've got it in a word  doc.
 
I've found this forum rather upsetting of late.
I don't like it.
I don't like the cult tone it has - a tone which very much revolves around  
Anthony McWatt.
I find it repulsive.
It may be time to leave, and leave for a good long time...
Love,
Mark