From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 00:48:40 BST
Paul, Mark M and all MOQers:
Paul Turner wrote:
First, I think Mark proposes that the meanings of "coherent" and
"coherence" are extended to become philosophic terms...
I think Mark sees how these words connote something similar to Quality,
but in a more familiar way, and in a way that is more widely used,
academically and generally. Mark then identifies the use of the term,
"sweet spot," as a measure of what he terms, "exceptional coherence."
Through these terms he is able to link Pirsig's MOQ to terminology not
restricted to this forum and then use accounts and testimonies from
diverse sources to provide evidence to support Pirsig's metaphysics.
dmb replies:
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you and thanks for your efforts.
I have to say that I was a little insulted by the inclusion of the
dictionary definitions and certainly hope that you didn't imagine that I
lacked such knowledge. What I don't get is the meaning beyond the
dictionary, Mark's supposed "philosophical" meaning of the word "coherence".
Its pretty clear that he thinks the word means somthing "similar to Quality"
and that he's using the term to "link Pirsig's MOQ" to various fields. But
as it is presented, I think it not only fails to accomplish this linking,
the ideas themselves seems to make no sense. They seem contrary to the MOQ
and logically incoherent. Hopefully, I can show you what I mean below...
Paul continued:
Secondly, Mark sees coherence not only as the mark of exceptional
experience but as the active centre of evolution...
Mark said:
"If a pattern is in too static a relationship, it ... is evolutionary
dead. If the pattern is in too unstable a relationship, it [becomes too
Dynamic to latch].
The sweet spot is postulated as a coherent state somewhere between these
two extremes. At the sweet spot of Dynamic Quality (DQ), a pattern is
neither too static or unstable. It is here that a process is most
efficient, art more beautiful and life more serene.
According to Pirsig, evolution also tends towards DQ. Therefore, sweet
spots may be viewed as the immediate cutting pressure in the
evolutionary process."
dmb replies:
If coherence refers to a well integrated whole, then how can it also refer
to experience? How can the sweet spot be a balance between death and chaos,
which is a description of the right degree of stability, and be "the
immediate cutting pressure", which is Dynamic? And as a matter of taste or
style, I suppose, is it not very bizzare to use a sports analogy to describe
what is other thought of as the mystical cutting edge of reality? I don't
know, maybe you're a huge sports fan, but I think the image trivalizes the
issues. Anyway, to assert that efficiency, beauty and serenity are the
result of being somewhere between too static and too unstable is to assert
nothing at all. It like saying the man is alive because he was born but has
not yet died. Yea. Its true, but what does that add? More....
Paul went further:
Mark further explores the idea of coherence in terms of the static
levels, and in examining accounts of, "sweet spots," sees that coherence
occurs across Pirsig's levels:
"The deep natural impulse towards order that complexity indicates may be
better restated as a balance between SQ patterns. The impulse is DQ and
the order is SQ.
At the sweet spot of the tennis racquet during the moment of impact,
inorganic patterns comprising the structure of the artefact are in a
high state of coherence with the organic patterns of the player. The
Quality stimulus of all these patterns (taken as a unitary system) has
coalesced into a coherent aesthetic state."
dmb replies:
The impulse toward order is DQ and the order itself is sq? See, now this
just flatly contradicts Pirsig's MOQ, where DQ's impulse is toward freedom,
which is approximately the opposite of the impulse to order. Also, why
should we add the idea of coherence to static patterns when they already
are, by definition, the order that holds the world together. I mean, if a
static patterns lacked coherence, it wouldn't even be a static pattern.
Static patterns ARE stable coherence forms, no? And I fail to see how the
tennis player's mastery over his racket is clarified by describing it as
"high state of coherence". What does coherence mean in a sentence like that?
Is the expensive cut of meat in the butcher shop window more coherent than
the cheap cut? Is that what makes my dog a good one? I have a more coherent
dog? These "philosophical" terms do not convey any additional meaning about
meat, tennis, dogs or the MOQ.
These terms seem aimed at conveying a Zen-like depth, but upon examination
the ideas contradict the MOQ and are logically incoherent. So far, it still
looks like pretentious non-sense to me. More...
Paul concluded:
Finally, Mark observes that coherence may operate in a moment, such as
hitting a home run, or over longer periods. One can imagine momentous
occasions in history occurring due to a sweet spot lasting months or
even years, from the emergence of DNA to a political administration
pushing forward reforms.
"If this coherent state is achievable in all levels (inorganic, organic,
social and intellectual) then it becomes possible to imagine a cycle of
harmonic coherence throughout the evolution of all levels. Such a cycle
of coherence/incoherence would describe the dominant patterns exerting
influence in particular relationships. Such relationships may vary over
the cycle of a human day, year, lifetime, individual, organisation or
institution."
dmb replies:
"a cycle of harmonic coherence througout the evolution of all levels"? It
sound very grand and all that, but what the hell does it mean? This cycle of
harmonic coherence describes dominat patterns exerting influence? What's the
problem here? Couldn't think of a way to be more vague? I honestly can't
believe this makes any sense to anyone and I'm very perplexed as to how you
could imagine this would make anything more clear.
Are you playing some kind of joke on me? I mean, coming to the defense of
this new age jibberish is just not like you. If you're NOT kidding, please
explain. I still see no merit in mark's "coherence". In fact, the whole
notion seems to confuse things terribly. I just don't get it and, for
reasons that allude me, it seems he'd like it if I did. But don't bother
unless its fun. The last thing I want to do is make you answer for the
beliefs of another or otherwise give you a gumption-sucking homework
assignment.
Thanks,
dmb
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 Jul 12 2004 - 00:51:02 BST