[MD] What is SOM?

[Ian Glendinning]

You can't get away that lightly Bo,

If you really are agreeing with that ... as I thought we had in the
past anyway ... then our only disagreement is how this is actually
expressed in the MoQ levels and patterns.

The MoQ intellectual level MUST be more than SOMism .... SOMism will
just find itself to be (or to have been)  a "static pattern" as MoQ
intellect (and language) continues to evolve.

The historical dividing line between social and intellectual may well
be the original evolution of SOMism, and that will remain as a
historial fact that once distinguished intellectual from social, but
the "definition" of intellectual continues to evolve.

Ian

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 5:45 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Ian said:
>> Blimey, I agree with Platt again ... "We think we're in SOM whenever
>> we think. But we're actually in MOQ all the time."
>
>> That's a neat way to put the problem we have arguing to anything like
>> conclusions, because our thought and talk is (mostly) hidebound by our
>> SOMist heritage. Even those of us that just "know" we are MoQists, can
>> help tripping up over the SOMism in our arguments, thought or expressed.
>> (Is this the "Ker-Ching", in the Ron / DMB thread ?)
>
> I can only say: Amen!
> Bo