From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 17 2004 - 20:54:54 BST
Hello everyone
>From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD the metaphysics of freedom
>Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:43:55 EDT
>
>Hi Mark
>
>I like to deal with the MOQ that's all. The MOQ is where my arguments begin
>and end. A metaphysics of 'x' whatever 'x' may be other than Quality does
>not
>help IMO. It's just my personal view. Keeping the MOQ central helps to
>encourage others to use it's vocabulary.
Hi Mark
I know you don't mean to sound hypocritical but that's how you come across
in the above paragraph. What does this have to do with my explanation of the
usage of "metaphysics of freedom"? As I pointed out, it has nothing to do
with the MOQ but rather is a device to better organize the archives and
allow me better access to any replies I might receive but otherwise overlook
under the thread of "metaphysics of free enterprise." Is that so hard to
understand?
>
>Dan:
>I know you've been asked this before and I already know the answer but
>still, I can't help asking it again: if you don't mind, please point out to
>me where the term "coherence" occurs in Robert Pirsig's writings. Perhaps
>then the rest of your post will make a little more sense.
>
>Mark 17-7-04: Pirsig has used the term coherence in it's dictionary defined
>sense a number of times. Observation and application of the MOQ DQ/sq
>division
>raises the dictionary definition of coherence to a new philosophical
>position
>IMO. This term has been used by Whitehead and Zohar also, but not
>specifically
>in terms of value.
This is not what I asked you and it is not a proper answer. A simple "no"
would have sufficed nicely. And I know the term "coherence" has been used by
other authors. I've read it myself. Just not in Robert Pirsig's work, which
according to your first paragraph ("The MOQ is where my arguments begin and
end.") you hold most dear.
>
> >
> >Coherence specifically concerns and takes into account the MOQ's four
> >levels
> >of evolution, and may therefore avoid the terms, 'personal' 'my' and
> >'others'
> >if carefully applied. The individual is simply a coherent state dominated
> >at
> >various stages by one or more levels.
>
>This seems rather silly to me, no more than conjecture.
>
>Mark 17-7-04: Buddhists would disagree with your assessment Dan. And the
>MOQ
>conception of self is entirely in accordance with my statement. I did not
>refer to DQ in the above because coherence, as postulated, is a patterned
>state
>which is, by definition, very much open to DQ.
Yes, well you better work on eliminating "I" from your posts too then. We
suggest "we" works well. Your statement is silly and bolstering it with
Buddhism and the MOQ I find more than a bit disrespectful. Can you point to
where Mr. Pirsig's MOQ advises us to avoid terms like "others," "personal"
and "my"?
>
> >Coherence is closer to the code of art in that it allows maximum freedom
> >within patterns and minimum patterned relationships.
>
>Um, what? and where?
>
>Mark 17-7-04: I shall try to explain without referring you to The edge of
>chaos.
>sq and DQ are mutual. Coherence is that point where sq patterns are
>completely harmonious.
I've read your essay, no need to refer me to it. Your original post still
lacks any meaningful sense to me and your answers here are weak at best.
>
>Mark 17-7-04: Unless i am mistaken, Robert Pirsig is aware of coherence as
>i
>describe it and has made no objection.
I have no way of knowing what Mr. Pirsig is aware of nor if he has any
objections. As long as you call it "Maxwell's Coherence" (even though you
didn't invent the term or its usage) to distinguish it from his MOQ, then I
should think he'd have no objection. But to pretend that no objection by Mr.
Pirsig is an affirmation of your "coherence" is, again, rather silly.
I couldn't help but notice (with your snide reference to Platt, who has
nothing whatsoever to do with my original post) that you seem to enjoy
employing your fixation on certain members of the forum and berating them to
the point of driving them from the discussion. I notice that Robert Pirsig
doesn't object to that either but I find your behavior now and in the past
as "squonkstail" to be just plain rude and insensitive. You may not like it
and I'm sorry to say so but I fail to find any "coherence" in such antics.
IMO, as always.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Overwhelmed by debt? Find out how to ‘Dig Yourself Out of Debt’ from MSN
Money. http://special.msn.com/money/0407debt.armx
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 : Sat Jul 17 2004 - 21:34:31 BST