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

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

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.

[Case]
The concept of relationship is inherently dynamic.  There can be no
relationships between purely static entities. A relationship  demands a
response change. Just look at how you have stated it. Stasis is  static. It
is entropy. Chaos is dynamic. It is change and energy. If you put  stasis on
one end and chaos on the other the possibilities are endless.
 
Mark 30-01-07: Hi Case,
This is a broad statement with no supporting argument.
I shall provide you with an argument you sloppy thinker you:
I've employed the ZMM, 'stellar system' metaphor.
More fundamentally, this metaphor is a radial motion metaphor.
According to this metaphor sq-sq relationships may slow down in their  orbits 
and become static, as when a motorcycle wheel stops spinning - the edge  is 
motionless relative to its centre.
As for the metaphor you employ here: It's a Thermodynamic metaphor.
Relationships at absolute zero lose identity (according to experiments in  
quantum states) so the Thermodynamic relationship is a poor relational metaphor  
to employ. Entropy is a measure of thermodynamic dispersal, so terms such as  
energy and chaos are inappropriate.

[Mark]
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]
Coherence is more of an assessment of a relationship's  spot on the stasis
chaos continuum. It's the probability of stability.  Coherent relationships
hang together at least enough to be recognized as  such. More than anything,
coherence is a measure of relative stasis.
 
Mark 30-01-07:
If this is a symmetrical position, then It may be stated with  equal force 
that coherence is a measure of relative Dynamism.
However, it isn't symmetrical, because chaos is not static.
You see, the important features of coherence are ordered relationships  
involving unity.
This flies in the face of entropy as may be seen in biological  systems.
 
Case:
I am arguing for a Quality centered model orbited by  relationships.
Relationships, experiences and events all have static and  dynamic properties
both of which can often be specified. Each event is an  expression of the
Quality of tension between the static and the  dynamic.
 
Mark 30-01-07:
You are entitled to your opinion.
But i think i am entitled to ask you for a clear argument and statement for  
your position, and i'm still waiting for one.

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.

[Case]
To say that DQ is  undefined either adds a second undefined term to the MoQ
or throws Quality  out of its own metaphysics. Beyond that it cuts the MoQ
off from the wealth  of information represented by fluid dynamics and
nonlinear dynamics where the  concepts of static and dynamic naturally
transpose.
 
Mark 30-01-07:
1. You don't half bang on about this Quality/DQ bit don't you?
If the undefined is so, then any term applied to it is a mistake from a  
mystical point of view: It doesn't matter if you use the term, Quality, DQ, or  
boobily boo.
The moq tries to retain the mystic element by using the term DQ.
2. Re: Fluid Dynamics. The moq isn't a Metaphysics of Fluid Dynamics.
The term, 'Dynamic' is not being used with reference to a scientific  
discipline, although the metaphorical resonance's must be acknowledged and may  even 
be useful.
If you want us to regard FD as more fundamental to a metaphysics then may i  
ask what metaphysics underpins FD?
If you answer: Quality, then for you DQ is definable.
But this is not the moq.
 
Case:
In any event I do not think DQ is excellent. Many if not most  dynamic events
carry with them the potential for disaster. A plane crash is  dynamic.
 
Mark 30-01-07:
An engine performing at maximal efficiency may be coherent.
I suggested you may be conflating (actually i said, 'confusing' which was a  
mistake, sorry mate) DQ with coherence incorrectly because you did not seem to 
 be recognising the value status of coherence. DQ cannot be valued for the 
sake  of it because then there would be no corresponding structural sq latching  
support - like Hippies.
Love and peace man,
Mark