[MD] The SOM-MOQ relationship.

[ian glendinning]

Bo you responded
> I could not agree more, but intellect clings to the MOQ. Please
> continue as an intellectual pattern, don't leave home! And so
> many self-declared moqists work overtime in intellect's service.

Look, Bo, that is filled with irony and poetry, but I don't get your
meaning, in any useful sense to me. Whatever it is, it's hardly an
argument is it ?

Ian


On 12/13/05, skutvik at online.no <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> On 12 Dec. you spoke thus:
>
> > Bo, I see Ant has picked up the thread, but ...
>
> Yes without addressing the bone of contention which is how SOM
> is to be tucked in under the MOQ. If the "original" way:
>
>    "In the MOQ, all organisms are objective. They exist in
>    the material world. All societies are subjective. They exist
>    in the mental world. The distinction is very sharp. For
>    example, the President of the US" is a social pattern. No
>    objective scientific instrument can distinguish a President
>    of the US from anyone else."
>
> .... is accepted as valid stuff I can't for the life of me understand
> where the MOQ differs from SOM.
>
> > Where did you get the "let's keep quiet please" idea from anything I
> > said ?
>
> A general sense of unease when "unassimilated" things are aired.
>
> > As for enlightenment, you really do miss the point. The lesson is to
> > recognise the child-like simplicity, not to learn something more
> > intellectual, in order to unederstand.
>
> I could not agree more, but intellect clings to the MOQ. Please
> continue as an intellectual pattern, don't leave home! And so
> many self-declared moqists work overtime in intellect's service.
>
> Bo
>
>
> 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/
>