Mark: Not so. Coherence is one form of sq-sq relationships. Another is stasis. Yet another is chaos. I can't think of a fourth. That's the postulation.
[Case] The concept of relationship is inherently dynamic. There can be no relationships between purely static entities. A relationship demands a response change. Just look at how you have stated it. Stasis is static. It is entropy. Chaos is dynamic. It is change and energy. If you put stasis on one end and chaos on the other the possibilities are endless. Mark 30-01-07: Hi Case, This is a broad statement with no supporting argument. I shall provide you with an argument you sloppy thinker you: I've employed the ZMM, 'stellar system' metaphor. More fundamentally, this metaphor is a radial motion metaphor. According to this metaphor sq-sq relationships may slow down in their orbits and become static, as when a motorcycle wheel stops spinning - the edge is motionless relative to its centre. As for the metaphor you employ here: It's a Thermodynamic metaphor. Relationships at absolute zero lose identity (according to experiments in quantum states) so the Thermodynamic relationship is a poor relational metaphor to employ. Entropy is a measure of thermodynamic dispersal, so terms such as energy and chaos are inappropriate. [Mark] A metaphorical way of seeing this is to paraphrase this ZMM passage: "The sun of quality," he wrote, "does not revolve around the subjects and objects of our existence. It does not just passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way. It has created them. The sun of DQ does not revolve around sq relationships. It does not just passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way. It has created them. To continue with this metaphor: The best sq orbits are coherent. Further, the most coherent relationships orbit closer to DQ. In what way does any of this define DQ? Answer: Not at all. [Case] Coherence is more of an assessment of a relationship's spot on the stasis chaos continuum. It's the probability of stability. Coherent relationships hang together at least enough to be recognized as such. More than anything, coherence is a measure of relative stasis. Mark 30-01-07: If this is a symmetrical position, then It may be stated with equal force that coherence is a measure of relative Dynamism. However, it isn't symmetrical, because chaos is not static. You see, the important features of coherence are ordered relationships involving unity. This flies in the face of entropy as may be seen in biological systems. Case: I am arguing for a Quality centered model orbited by relationships. Relationships, experiences and events all have static and dynamic properties both of which can often be specified. Each event is an expression of the Quality of tension between the static and the dynamic. Mark 30-01-07: You are entitled to your opinion. But i think i am entitled to ask you for a clear argument and statement for your position, and i'm still waiting for one. Mark: It's not possible to discuss DQ in anything other than sq terms. Coherence is one way of discussing sq-sq relationships. I think you are confusing excellence with DQ Case. Coherence is a feature of excellence but to state DQ is excellence is going some way to defining DQ, which is surely a no no. When i discuss coherence is discuss excellence not DQ. [Case] To say that DQ is undefined either adds a second undefined term to the MoQ or throws Quality out of its own metaphysics. Beyond that it cuts the MoQ off from the wealth of information represented by fluid dynamics and nonlinear dynamics where the concepts of static and dynamic naturally transpose. Mark 30-01-07: 1. You don't half bang on about this Quality/DQ bit don't you? If the undefined is so, then any term applied to it is a mistake from a mystical point of view: It doesn't matter if you use the term, Quality, DQ, or boobily boo. The moq tries to retain the mystic element by using the term DQ. 2. Re: Fluid Dynamics. The moq isn't a Metaphysics of Fluid Dynamics. The term, 'Dynamic' is not being used with reference to a scientific discipline, although the metaphorical resonance's must be acknowledged and may even be useful. If you want us to regard FD as more fundamental to a metaphysics then may i ask what metaphysics underpins FD? If you answer: Quality, then for you DQ is definable. But this is not the moq. Case: In any event I do not think DQ is excellent. Many if not most dynamic events carry with them the potential for disaster. A plane crash is dynamic. Mark 30-01-07: An engine performing at maximal efficiency may be coherent. I suggested you may be conflating (actually i said, 'confusing' which was a mistake, sorry mate) DQ with coherence incorrectly because you did not seem to be recognising the value status of coherence. DQ cannot be valued for the sake of it because then there would be no corresponding structural sq latching support - like Hippies. Love and peace man, Mark 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
