Ian, You make a couple of claims which argue from a standpoint that ideas come *before* quality and coherence. This is ugly and for lack of a better word … has little coherence..
[Ian 1] > I do believe it's necessary to experience different levels of > incoherence in order to understand coherence - so an educational > "step" maybe - but not an aim or objective to "be" incoherent I don't 'believe' this. I experience quality and coherence. This coherence exists before me or any ideas I have about it. See the difference? I don't have to experience 'incoherence' to know what coherence is. Some ideas are just more coherent than others.. Those ideas which are low on the scale of coherence - we call low quality and those which are high on the scale we call high quality.. [Ian 2] > I do believe it's necessary to honestly recognise that judgements of > how coherent something is does depend on our intellectual model of > coherence. Couldn't disagree more. This is more idealism. Certainly our ideas of how coherent something is depends on the culture from which we are from. But what's fundamental isn't the ideas or the culture but the quality which creates all things including these ideas and cultures. This 'coherence' is before *both* our ideas about it. So it's not just a matter of opinion - but a universal quality before all things. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
