Hi David, Thanks for addressing the actual point. .... inserted ....
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM, David Harding <da...@goodmetaphysics.com> wrote: > Ian, > > You make a couple of claims which argue from a standpoint that ideas come > *before* quality and coherence. [IG] I don't. Apart from that you don't say much I disagree with. 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? [IG] Of course. Me too. But that's "this coherence", and is the point I was making. It's more subtle than the point that led to this thread, which was about coherence of arguments, of expressed ideas. 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.. [IG] Agreed. > > [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. [IG] Agreed. It was this kind of coherence of ideas expressed that we were discussing. 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. [IG] Agreed. Fundamental to our Pirsigian view anyway. So this is my point - we (radically) experience different levels of coherence consonance / dissonance psychologist might say - but when we objectify them enough to describe, define and argue about them, we bring a "model of coherence" to that argumentation. [Like quality and intellect, the deeper concept of coherence, has broad and narrow working definitions once we make them the topic of conversation - I'd rather in the context of this thread maybe drop back to considering the quality of idea-manipulation by intellect. This was the coherence being criticised.] > 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 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
