Hi Arlo, Hmm, this is just widening again. I wanted to talk about the intellectual level, you switched us to coherence, I pointed out I found the MoQ totally / highly coherent, but its expression "less so" and suggested we'd need a working definition (*) of coherence to make progress, and you definition of coherence adds a dozen new concepts (from Merriam-Webster) to our conversation. I'll try to respond to (some of) it in the following:
Let's try this "Man is a wolf" Is a coherent statement, you say. Linguistically it's a coherent expression, meeting the rules of grammar, sure. An integrated whole, with subject, verb object, etc ... but the world pattern being described, must be metaphorical on at least one level - maybe "Phaedrus should really have been Lycius" kinda level ? (Maybe even a "koan" .... quote your favourite .... could be just as coherent?) Your definition of coherence in this "value of the expression of intellectual patterns" context, includes poetics. That's good. And you say definition is not a part of it. That's good. It's a broad definition, one that accepts that "objective" definitions of man, wolf, Phaedrus and Lycius, and even "to be" are not critical to its value. That's good too. Given shared experiences, intent and knowledge, coherent communication can depend on only the merest allusions. How true. So using Pirsig's "economy of expression", given this broad enlightened, "MoQish" take on intellect (that we share, naturally) "SOMism" must be some narrower set of patterns within the intellectual (and social) level(s). So back to my topic: As working definitions (*) what distinguishes the MoQish intellect from the SOMist ? (And vice-versa). (*) As you know, I'm not big (we're not big, it seems) on value being dependent on definitions, in any tight, objective, reductionist, "essential" sense, so the only reason for a definition is to "distinguish" terms in the context of a current conversation. Working - the current task in hand. We're back on topic. Ian On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:47 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [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. > 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
