From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 19:09:28 BST
Hi chaps
My take on Mark's contributions are similar
to Paul's. I think we all know what we mean
by SQ patterns, DQ is more difficult but I
associate it with the capacity for new forms to
emerge. Clearly, when a new form emerges,
such as the City State, it has to organise many
already existing SQ patterns. This new organisation
of existing SQ patterns requires that the various
lower level SQ patterns (like hydrogen and oxygen
atoms in water) 'cohere' with each other in the new
emergent pattern/structure. Of course hydrogen
and oxygen can exist next to each other and not
'cohere' with each other to become water and remain
as separate gases bouncing off each other. I think this
may be what Mark means by coherence. Also a pattern
of skilled behaviour is also a new level of organisation,
like having the skill to top spin and ace a tennis serve.
If your pattern of organisation/skill does not cohere with
the SQ/patterns of ball/arm/gravity/racket/etc then you fluff
the shot and the organising skill does not cohere with the
lower level SQ/patterns. Make any sense?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 9:40 AM
Subject: RE: MD Maxwell's "Coherence" and the MOQ
> Hi David
>
> dmb said:
> 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.
>
> Paul:
> Not intended, and no, I didn't imagine you didn't know what the word
> meant, I thought a precise definition was a useful starting point,
> that's all.
>
> Dmb said:
> 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.
>
> Paul:
> Well, I gave you what you asked for and you hold the same opinion. They
> are Mark's ideas and it is for him to counter your arguments. I will
> counter the words directed at me though.
>
> Dmb said:
> 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.
>
> Paul:
> It doesn't make the MOQ clearer to me; Pirsig did a good enough job. I
> find value in the way that Mark provides examples from sources other
> than Pirsig, similar to noting how Wilber, or Plotinus, or Barfield etc.
> supports the MOQ, only the accounts he uses are not from philosophers,
> but from sportsmen, musicians etc.
>
> Dmb said:
> I mean, coming to the defense of this new age jibberish is just not like
> you.
>
> Paul:
> You're right, in that I don't defend "new age gibberish."
>
> Dmb said:
> I still see no merit in mark's "coherence". In fact, the whole notion
> seems to confuse things terribly.
>
> Paul:
> Well, I'm sure Mark can live with your opinion. Stick to what you know
> and like, I guess?
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 - 20:28:18 BST