Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8665903" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Interesting--that's not a usage of coherent I'm familiar with. All the usages I know of (other than the scientific definition) are much more general than that, and don't require only a single unified purpose/direction. The closest I can find is Merriam-Webster's usage 3a of &quot;cohere&quot; to mean &quot;to become united in principles, relationships, or interests&quot; but even that is still far broader than the usage you're proposing as it allows for the possibility of being unified among multiple principles, relationships, or interests.Do you have a specific dictionary in mind where you're seeing that narrow usage? If not, is it possible you're applying the specificity (and neutrality) of the physics definition of &quot;coherent&quot; to the context of the non-scientific definition? If you are (or if Edwards was) using a nonstandard definition of &quot;coherent&quot; that could explain some of the disagreement on the usage of the related term &quot;incoherent&quot;.Then again, there are a lot of dictionaries out there, so it's entirely possible that there's one that recognizes a useage where the specificity of the scientific definition bleeds over into the non-scientific definition! If so, please let me know which one.(Emphasis added.) I tend to agree with the bolded statement. From what I've read it seems like that normative statement was practically taken as axiomatic at The Forge. Actually, is it possible that &quot;incoherent&quot; at The Forge may best be understood simply as jargon referring to games or play that do not adhere to that normative axiom? That would nicely complementary the definition you discuss for &quot;hybrid&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 8665903, member: 6802765"] Interesting--that's not a usage of coherent I'm familiar with. All the usages I know of (other than the scientific definition) are much more general than that, and don't require only a [I]single[/I] unified purpose/direction. The closest I can find is Merriam-Webster's usage 3a of "cohere" to mean "to become united in principles, relationships, or interests" but even that is still far broader than the usage you're proposing as it allows for the possibility of being unified among [I]multiple[/I] principles, relationships, or interests. Do you have a specific dictionary in mind where you're seeing that narrow usage? If not, is it possible you're applying the specificity (and neutrality) of the physics definition of "coherent" to the context of the non-scientific definition? If you are (or if Edwards was) using a nonstandard definition of "coherent" that could explain some of the disagreement on the usage of the related term "incoherent". Then again, there are a lot of dictionaries out there, so it's entirely possible that there's one that recognizes a useage where the specificity of the scientific definition bleeds over into the non-scientific definition! If so, please let me know which one. (Emphasis added.) I tend to agree with the bolded statement. From what I've read it seems like that normative statement was practically taken as axiomatic at The Forge. Actually, is it possible that "incoherent" at The Forge may best be understood simply as jargon referring to games or play that do not adhere to that normative axiom? That would nicely complementary the definition you discuss for "hybrid". [/QUOTE]

Verification