[MD] Mystics, Brains -- Matt has a question

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

[Case]
Since this is over let me point out that a major source of  difficulty is
this business about DQ being undefined. Mark wants to define it  so bad that
he actually does but gives it a new name and claims that a name  change is
not a definition.
 
Mark: Not so.
Coherence is one form of sq-sq relationships.
Another is stasis.
Yet another is chaos.
I can't think of a fourth.
That's the postulation.
A metaphorical way of seeing this is to paraphrase this ZMM passage:
"The sun of quality," he wrote, "does not revolve around the subjects and  
objects of our existence. It does not just passively illuminate them. It is not  
subordinate to them in any way. It has created them.

The sun of DQ does not revolve around sq relationships. It does not  just 
passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way. It has  
created them.
 
To continue with this metaphor: The best sq orbits are coherent.
Further, the most coherent relationships orbit closer to DQ.
In what way does any of this define DQ?
Answer: Not at all.

Case:
Quality is undefined. DQ and SQ are aspects of Quality. I see  no reason why
one aspect can be discussed and the other can not.
 
Mark: It's not possible to discuss DQ in anything other than sq  terms.
Coherence is one way of discussing sq-sq relationships.
I think you are confusing excellence with DQ Case.
Coherence is a feature of excellence but to state DQ is excellence is going  
some way to defining DQ, which is surely a no no.
When i discuss coherence is discuss excellence not  DQ.