So Arlo, your working definition of coherence has noting to do with being definable .... carry on, .... anyone. Ian (BTW my topic was / is the intellectual level - but happy to continue on coherence for now. I'm not doing any "reducing" - quite the opposite.)
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Ian] > Ian adds, would anyone like to continue, or join that up with the topics of > intellectual coherence as intellectual patterns - with or without working > definitions of coherence and intellect, which as Arlo already noted may be > ultimately unavoidable for some patterns? > > [Arlo] > As I mentioned off-line, but will restate here. 'Coherence' has nothing to do > with 'undefined' or 'indefinable'. That DQ is not defined in the MOQ is not a > sign of 'incoherence'. That it requires 'poetics' to get at it is not a sign > of 'incoherence'. All you doing with this is reducing 'coherence' to > 'objectivist/scientistic/SOMist', which is the SOURCE OF YOUR ERROR in the > first place. > 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
