[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

[Marsha]
> To think that either the 'emerging' or 'stuff' is
>  somehow dependent 
> on 'balance',  'coherence' or 'sweet spot'   is a
> mistake.  

Could you please explain  why this is a mistake. 
I know where your coming from with 'balance'.   The
cultural language would mislead people if balance is
used.  What  about coherence and sweet spot?  thanks.


cloudy... cloudy... no  snow cloudy day,
SA

Hi Marsh and SA,
The first thing to remember is coherence is a static observation of the  
differentiated having become undifferentiated.
Excellence destroys differentiation's.
So, if you wish to be excellent you may be said to aim at coherence along  
the way.
Looking back we can see where coherence was, and looking forward we can aim  
at it too.
 
Coherence is not DQ.
Coherence, chaos and stasis are static relationships which orbit DQ.
DQ is the Sun around which sq orbits, and the best orbits are  coherent.
The Earth maintains a coherent orbit with it's Sun and life emerges from  it.
A good piece of writing is a coherent pattern of sq relationships which  
orbit DQ.
 
I think Marsha is correct in what she says and there is no problem with  this 
and suggesting coherence emerges from DQ.
 
That's how i see it.
 
Happy holidays.
Love,
Mark