Coherence Critique Part IV: drip, drip

This is how
I determine
my writing
coherent.

I observe:
each point made, from basis to claim,
on merit:
of correspondence with truth,
discernible and demonstrable,
or that support's inane, unsane.
Unproof. 
I measure: between and against,
by eye,
and I test

for conflict
inconsistency 
discrepancy 
contradiction 

...with the whole, 
with all parts
- in any and all
to see: 

where I was unsmart.
If no point at any point catches
to wreck or distend the case,
or otherwise tends
to undermine, and supposing
some overall point is tended
towards and actually made,

it’s coherent.

An abysmally low bar! Really, coherence.
A case can be coherent, yet
- utterly wrong. That’s where
you bring external consistency 
in. For coherence of a work, a case,
on its own: internal
consistency's enough. 
For use in life, probably not! 

Anyhow. I apologize for
my discursory manner. I recognize
in it a certain aesthetic wrong, by some
well-founded critic’s views,
and personal taste of gut and tongue,
and what’s more

I can’t disagree
with the justice
of their claims.

I understand the virtues in which their criteria
found, and are founded. There are, however,

other virtues. These, too have merit
and substance. Aesthetics, being
a matter of such taste, is supremely delicious
in my vulgar and screamingly bigoted view! I must

have
variety

or the equivalent! Or my palate grows nasty. 
I must be the variety I lack in the world. Otherwise,
hey,
that
works too.

COHERENCE, my loves!
Let COHERENCE be your watch-word!

Mine is: “Doot-di-doo”