[Ian] So Arlo, your working definition of coherence has noting to do with being definable...
[Arlo] I can't define Beethoven's 9th Symphony, or Cezanne's Pines and Rocks (Fontainebleau?), but I'd consider them coherent patterns. I can't reduce "man is a wolf" to a 'scientistic' statement/definition, but its a coherent pattern. >From Merriam-Webster: Coherence: systematic or logical connection or consistency : integration of diverse elements, relationships, or values Definable: able to be defined (to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of) : able to be specified to have a particular function or operation Pirsig holds Dynamic Quality to be indefinable, and yet states, "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of explanation. The Metaphysics of Quality satisfies these." (LILA) Metaphysics with an indefinable central term, yet still coherent. [Wiki on definition] Limitations of definition "Given that a natural language such as English contains, at any given time, a finite number of words, any comprehensive list of definitions must either be circular or rely upon primitive notions. If every term of every definiens must itself be defined, "where at last should we stop?"[12][13] A dictionary, for instance, insofar as it is a comprehensive list of lexical definitions, must resort to circularity.[14][15][16] Many philosophers have chosen instead to leave some terms undefined. The scholastic philosophers claimed that the highest genera (the so-called ten generalissima) cannot be defined, since we cannot assign any higher genus under which they may fall. Thus we cannot define being, unity and similar concepts.[7] Locke supposes in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding[17] that the names of simple concepts do not admit of any definition. More recently Bertrand Russell sought to develop a formal language based on logical atoms. Other philosophers, notably Wittgenstein, rejected the need for any undefined simples. Wittgenstein pointed out in his Philosophical Investigations that what counts as a "simple" in one circumstance might not do so in another.[18] He rejected the very idea that every explanation of the meaning of a term needed itself to be explained: "As though an explanation hung in the air unless supported by another one",[19] claiming instead that explanation of a term is only needed when we need to avoid misunderstanding." 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
