Re: MD coherence

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sat Aug 28 2004 - 01:05:49 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "MD MOQ and The Ideal Society."

    Dear Mark M.,

    I wrote 6 Jul 2004 14:35:19 +0200:
    'THE coherent combination or THE sweet spot ... doesn't exist. Pretending it
    does (e.g. by naming it 'freedom and quality') implies making DQ (emergent
    5th level patterns of value) subservient to 4th level symbolism.'

    You replied 6 Jul 2004 13:53:00 -0400
    'Sweet spot is a real language idiom. There is little point in denying this?
    The question is, "What is a sweet spot?"
    Applying the MOQ provides a revealing insight: Coherence between static
    patterns of value such that DQ becomes more influential. To put this another
    way, coherence is, "freedom from static patterns across static patterns."'

    The problem may be that I know of no equivalent of 'sweet spot' in Dutch and
    that I have seen it used in English only in your writings (and replies by
    others) on this list. It doesn't help me to get more insight.
    Coherence has an equivalent in Dutch. Experiencing 'coherence between
    patterns of value of different levels' means the experience that they
    somehow fit together in a specific combination.

    Mark 27-8-04: Hi Wim, This is not a good way of putting it: "Experiencing
    'coherence between
    patterns of value of different levels' means the experience that they somehow
    fit together in a specific combination." sq patterns do not, 'fit together'
    at all. sq patterns form relationships. It is relationships which are coherent
    or less coherent, not sq patterns which have 'fit together.' For example, a
    motorcycle at it's very best condition runs smoothly, experiences less wear,
    feels better to the rider, has a coherent relationship between all patterns
    (bike, road, rider, etc.), but if it is neglected and in poor running order it may
    be said to be composed of sq patterns which are of lower quality, i.e.
    incoherent.

    If coherence is situational
    according to you, you agree with me that 'THE coherent combination ...
    doesn't exist' and you can forget about my criticism that 'objective'
    coherence implies making DQ subservient to 4th level patterns of value.

    Mark 27-8-04: I do not understand what you mean when you talk about the 5th
    level. Please explain? I haven't got the faintest idea what you mean by the
    above.
    If it helps you, please remember that coherence in Human situations includes
    all Human patterns AND those of technology. The term 'combination' is
    inappropriate. I would urge you to think in terms of relationships of less or more
    coherence.

    I am not sure whether addition of 'coherence' as 'freedom from patterns of
    value across patterns of value from different levels' or as 'a combination
    of patterns of value of different levels that increases DQ influence' is
    useful for me. Until now you writings about 'coherence' have mainly made it
    difficult for me to understand you and not added much to my understanding.

    Mark 27-8-04: This is clear.

    I have been writing tentatively on this list occasionally about more
    (stability, versatility and) harmony with higher level patterns of value
    being what makes one pattern of value (at a specific level) 'better' than
    another one (at the same level). I.e. more (stability, versatility and)
    harmony across levels may be what shows us DQ when a specific pattern of val
    ue evolves into another one at a specific level. If this 'harmony' is what
    you mean with 'coherence', I'm fine with it, but I don't need it.

    Mark 27-8-04: That's fine. I'm not trying to sell you anything.

    If by 'coherence' you mean a different kind of experience that adds to or
    combines the experience of static quality and Dynamic Quality, I'm having
    problems with it.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    Mark 27-8-04: Coherence is a relational state of harmony. The maintenance of
    a motorcycle tells it all but now we are using the MOQ to describe in more
    detail why a 'healthy' motorcycle is better than a 'sick' motorcycle.
    Observing, "the healthy motorcycle has more Quality" or "the healthy
    motorcycle is more Dynamic" or "the healthy motorcycle is better" while true, doesn't
    employ the MOQ to anything like it's potential it seems to me. I feel a
    healthy motorcycle can be given a rigorous MOQ description in terms of sq
    relationships. The addition of coherence on top of the basic MOQ ontology of sq patterns
    helps and appears to be reflected in common language idiom.

    All the best,
    Mark

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 28 2004 - 01:06:12 BST