From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Mon Jul 26 2004 - 20:05:22 BST
Hi David
I'm not sure why you seem to have such a problem understanding what Mark is saying
re: Coherence. What is it that you find difficult to grasp about the concept of Coherence
as suggested by Mark?
On 25 Jul 2004 at 18:17, David Buchanan wrote:
>
> Mark and all MOQers:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valuemetaphysics:
> These quotes may support coherence, (additions by me):
>
> 177 "Intuition sometimes is an equivalent of Dynamic Quality. However, its
> also a kind of biological instinct. Since Western philosophy confuses these
> two, the MOQ avoids the term."
> Intuition has been suggested to be intellectual coherence between a repertoire of sq intellectual
> patterns. Thus, replacing coherence at the intellectual level for intuition avoids problems.
>
> [David Buchanan]
> If Pirsig is saying intuition is sometimes biological and sometimes Dynamic, and he
> certainly is, then your assertion that intuition is "intellectual coherence" is obviously quite off the mark, Mark.
>
> 180 "The MOQ supports both conservatism and liberalism at the same time.
> Freedom and order are contradictory but both are necessary at the same
> time."
> Coherence is the optimum state between DQ and sq.
>
> [David Buchanan]Coherence seems to be whatever strikes your fancy at the moment. Its the
> word with a thousand definitions, whicheffectively renders it meaningless.
[Horse]
Are you saying that words can have only one meaning and if a word has multiple
meanings it's rendered meaningless? I would have thought it perfectly reasonable that a
word can have different meanings given different contexts. Coherence is one such word
and can, quite reasonably, have different meanings pertaining to different contexts. So
far from rendering it useless it makes it more flexible.
>
> 198 "Zen argues that it is through stillness, not action, that a man can
> realize himself, in the sense of actualizing his potentialities and
> developing his personality towards the ideal state of harmonious integraton
> of his powers."
> The sweet spot or coherence in what is traditionally called, 'activity' (sport, engineering, art, logic,
> etc.) is that point where the 'thing' doing the 'activity' is DQ. For example, riding at the sweet spot
> it is a state in which distinctions between rider and thing rode disappear; where does the rider
> begin and where does he/she end? Where does the bike begin and where does it end? Stillness
> - coherence.
>
> [David Buchanan]
> Activity is coherence and coherence is stillness, so activity is stillness? Oh my god, are you
> alright?You're bending over so far backwards to make it fit, that I'mworried that you've slipped a
> diskor snapped your spine in two. I think the quote makes it pretty clear that Pirsig idea about
> "the ideal state of harmonious integration" is approximately the opposite of what you've been
> saying. For you its about doing, for Zen and Pirsig its about NOT doing.
[Horse]
It appears that you might be bending over backwards to misunderstand what Mark's
saying.
Coherence can be both activity and stillness given different contexts. A good example of
this comes from the martial art iaido.There is achieving coherence or the right moment
in a waiting state (stillness) and achieving coherence in an active state when the sword
is drawn, the strike is made and the sword replaced in the saya (scabbard).
So stillness is coherence and activity is coherence - both stillness and activity can be
coherent, one leading to the other.
Where's the problem?
>
> 210 "The MOQ says there is an ultimate unity but the interrelation of
> subject and object does not reveal it."
> Coherence, the interrelation of DQ and sq, or better said, sq-sq tension attempts to convey
> instances of unity.
>
> [David Buchanan]
> Again,Pirsig is saying the opposite. He's saying unity cannot be found in the interrealtion of the
> parts. Its no good to try to weasel out of it by switching sq-sq tension for s-o tension. It still
> expresses an idea that Pirsig explicitly rejects in this quote.
[Horse]
Pirsig says that the interrelation of subject and object does not reveal ultimate unity -
probably because DQ is excluded. Mark appears to be saying that the interrelationof SQ
(S/O) and DQ gives instances of unity or coherence. That Mark prefers the term sq-sq
tension for DQ-SQ interrelation is neither here nor there. SQ-SQ tension is not the same
as S-O tension so you are again misinterpreting what Mark is saying.
>
> If faith is having a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary, Mark has tremendous faith in the
> validity of his ideas about coherence.
[Horse]
As you haven't shown where this evidence exists the above statement is irrelevant. Mark
is trying to extend the scope and vocabulary of the MoQ and just because you can't (or
won't?) see that that much of what he says makes a lot of sense this doesn't lessen the
validty of what he's saying.
Horse
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 26 2004 - 20:44:41 BST