Ian tries to re-state his point: So back to the point. Do I believe in-coherence is a "necessary" part of / step towards .... quality understanding and knowledge ?
(Aside - 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. Though this is never a point I'm trying to make - more / wider experience is good. full stop. Incoherence is simply part of life's rich tapestry. Non contentious. No point to make here.) THIS IS THE POINT I do believe it's necessary to honestly recognise that judgements of how coherent something is does depend on our intellectual model of coherence. So, to rephrase your "seem" sentence: Ian says - "In order to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns .... one does have to recognise that the dogma of what counts as coherent - valid argumentation - is itself such an intellectual pattern." [Address just that statement without second-guessing what Ian seems to believe - or the quality of Ian's character - and maybe we can move on to questions of SOMist and MoQish intellect ....] [Ron addresses Ians point] Ian I think the misunderstanding lies in your assumption that the meaning of term "coherence" depends on how it is defined . Your arguement does not hold any water on the merit that any model's criteria relies on greater clarity in meaning. "Coherence" is the act of understanding. Some say it is the act of "be-ing" and the what-it-means to "exist". Pirsig would call it experience. If one experiences one values, if one values one is coherent. No one is addressing the quality of your character and we can only judge and comment on what you believe by the clarity and meaning of the words you write. You are the one expecting everyone to just know what you mean based on your character and not what you are actually writing. So when you say: We can gain a better understanding from not gaining any understanding, you are taken to be using a rhetorical device that signifies that you are implying a certain kind of deeper meaning by using a meaningless group of words that essentially conveys a rationalized vague contradictory and ultimately meaningless concept of the indefinable and the unknowable in experience. And the Bull dogs are killin your buzz .. Ian 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
