"but, I just don't feel like I require internal coherence "

[Trevor]

but, I just don't feel like I require internal coherence

How about you?

[Galen]

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

[woofwoofl]

For me, internal coherence is almost always secondary to external effectiveness. Any mental systems I have, if they exist, are generally loose, analog, localized, and ever-shifting...

[Trevor]

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

i'm afraid i can't. *shrug*

[ashlesha]

meh. i was going to vote i did relate but then i was waiting for you to elaborate first to be sure.

it doesnt ring any bells for me anyway. sometimes i think making things more coherent makes them less true. but other times things feel "off" somehow and it comes back to them not fitting together coherently. so i think its more of a tool than a need, if that makes sense.

[Sumer1an]

I NEED internal coherence. I absolutely have to have it. Thankfully, I almost always do have it.

[FDG]

I generally don't even think about the world as such. If it works, it works. Oftentimes, things have to be coherent in order to work, so internal coherence can definitely be useful.

[The Ineffable]

Crap, I voted the wrong option... I actually am in need of logical consistency. By this, I understand like something that makes sense and drives to a certain conclusion (it has some support), but it could be understood differently, I guess. For instance I don't relate to the idea that one must necessarily stay true to his view (though neither change it for no reason), except that when this affects other people, one should make a statement, I guess.

[Galen]

i'm afraid i can't. *shrug*

Then I can't be expected to answer.

[EyeSeeCold]

Then I can't be expected to answer.

Because you require internal coherence?

[Galen]

Because you require internal coherence?

I require any sort of coherence. Were someone to explain to me what exactly is meant by 'internal coherence' I'd probably be able to answer.

[strrrng]

it doesnt ring any bells for me anyway. sometimes i think making things more coherent makes them less true. but other times things feel "off" somehow and it comes back to them not fitting together coherently. so i think its more of a tool than a need, if that makes sense.

agreed. in most situations I just react to pings, gradually tie things together, etc. maybe if I'm actually analyzing something, I'll need some kind of finality; but even that will be gauged through a feeling of symmetry, not some obsessive breakdown. I used to be more controlled in this respect, but it always ended up feeling grating and repetitive.

[EyeSeeCold]

I require any sort of coherence. Were someone to explain to me what exactly is meant by 'internal coherence' I'd probably be able to answer.

Me too.

I require internal coherence.

[717495]

Yes. I mean no. Wait what was the question?

[DividedsGhost]

I bathe in both with equal zeal and brilliant radiance.

Because you require internal coherence?

LMAO BURN

[Creepy-]

I was originally going to answer no, as in I generally desire internal coherence, but then thought better of myself. Though it could be said that I desire internal consistency, I would by no means say I require it. Rather then requiring consistency or coherence, I would actually say that I require the means to create consistency and coherence. Actually acting by creating said consistency and coherence would be redundant much of the time because contradictory data could be introduced and then all traces of certainty would be erased. So rather, I think it would be good to have enough data from which to produce independently and dependently consistent systems which could be seen as a schema.