From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Mar 22 2004 - 12:58:01 GMT
Hi Mark,
> > Mark: 19-03-04: Sincere thanks for perseverance Platt. I hope it leads
> > somewhere? My dictionary defines 'cohere' as: To be logically or
> > aesthetically consistent. (Variations of this bring in consistency of
> > purpose also, but it's a long quote.) Here we see the terms 'logic' and
> > 'aesthetic' appearing in the same definition. I like this, because for
> > me, logic IS an aesthetically coherent intellectual pattern of value
> > evolving in a relationship with DQ.
>
> I agree that logic is an aesthetically satisfying intellectual pattern of
> value. But wouldn't it be more accurate to say it evolved as a result of
> DQ's influence on it's creator, Aristotle?
>
> Mark 20-03-04: Aristotle lived in an evolving continuum of patterns:
> If truth (an intellectual pattern of value) is a species of the Good, then
> truth, where ever found, is of the Good, and beautiful. Aristotle's
> patterns of intellectual value evolved over his life time from the static
> repertoire he inherited from his contemporaries. This can be shown -
> Aristotle's logic is an expansion of previous rhetorical devices for
> winning arguments. So, the sum total of Aristotle's evolving Intellectual
> patterning becomes an element in a continuum - an aesthetic continuum -
> which may be said to be increasing in coherence. Today's logic is just as
> much a continuation of that evolution as was Aristotle in his time - it's
> all part of the same evolving aesthetic continuum. In MoQ terms, the sum
> total of all intellectual patterning is being driven by DQ, and is
> simultaneously evolving towards DQ, in a complimentary principle of
> predetermined harmony (Quality - Tao). I feel the term Coherence is
> fruitful for conveying this process, because it is used by Pirsig himself
> to describe the effect the MoQ has when applied to the interpretation of
> experience.
Pirsig uses the common meaning of 'coherence,' i.e., "relating to the
order and consistency of thought." (Rand House dictionary). He writes:
"As long as you're inside a logical, coherent universe of thought you
can't escape metaphysics." (Lila-5)
That's why your use of 'coherence' seems odd and hardly descriptive of the
evolutionary process, a process that took place long before thought was
created by the human brain.
> Coherence is the degree to which evolution has pushed the
> static repertoire. The more evolution advances, the more severe coherence
> becomes.
What this has to do with 'thought' escapes me. And the adjective 'severe'
when applied to 'coherence' makes no sense at all. What is 'severe orderly
and consistent thought?'
> Thus, we have a term which includes two motions: DQ as the
> motivation of evolution, and DQ as the goal towards which evolution is
> heading.
The goal of DQ, as I'm sure you know, is freedom from all static patterns.
That's the highest value of all. Nor is there anything significant in DQ
having 'two motions.' Motivations presupposes goals, like good presupposes
evil and black presupposes white. .
> Coherence is here and now. When coherence fades, patterns become
> more static and less beautiful. When coherence increases, evolution moves
> forward and beauty is more intense.
IMO you are inventing meanings for 'coherence,' and I'm not sure what
those meanings are. Thus my confusion. Are you suggesting that the more
orderly and consistent our thoughts are, the better? That's what Pirsig
suggests.
I think maybe you and I agree that the more beauty the better.
Best to you,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 22 2004 - 12:56:01 GMT