[MD] What is SOM?

[Heather Perella]

Krimel,

     Thanks for the clarification of your position.  That's what I was looking for (clarification).  Thanks.


cloudy but not raining,
SA


--- On Thu, 8/28/08, Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com> wrote:

> From: Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] What is SOM?
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 6:25 AM
> > Krimel:
> > The effects of experimenter bias are exactly the kinds
> of 'values'
> > science rightly tries to avoid. As both experimenter
> and
> > subject these biases would be likely to have a huge
> effect
> > on the outcome of the study.
> 
> SA:  dmb, wouldn't you say that Krimel, and Krimel
> might you agree, that
> what you (Krimel) say here is conflicting with what your
> saying below.
>  By saying that
> 
> [Krimel]
> I didn't say that science does not include the bias of
> the experimenter. I
> said science attempts to account for and control
> experimenter bias. Dave's
> proposal is an invitation to allow scientific mystics carte
> blanche to
> interpret their own subjective data as objective fact. Only
> they would, I
> suppose, have to phrase their results in terms Dave finds
> metaphysically
> acceptable. What I was attempting to explain to him that
> it's been tried and
> it doesn't work.
> 
> dmb paraphrasing Krimel:
> > subjects and objects are inferred from experience BY
> THE
> > SUBJECT, you reverse this central idea.
> 
> SA:  Krimel, your saying science does not include the bias
> of the
> experimentor, but then you say here that "subjects and
> objects are inferred
> from the experience by the 'subject'".  So by
> your logic, science doesn't
> achieve what you say it achieves.  So, what's really
> happening?  
>      I also understand this is a side note to the central
> discussion about
> pure experience/dynamic quality.
> 
> [Krimel]
> What I said before is that the MoQ is really only about how
> we form and
> frame personal experience. The levels are entirely
> anthropocentric. Even in
> this account of subject and objects being derive from
> experience. Where do
> the distinctions end up? Objects in general don't give
> a crap. Also as James
> points out, we sometimes derive from experience that we are
> subject and
> sometimes that we are object. So it only partly right to
> assume that I mean,
> "subjects and objects are inferred from experience BY
> THE SUBJECT." It is
> just as true that sometimes when the distinction it made,
> "subjects and
> objects are inferred from experience BY THE OBJECT."
> 
> 
> 
> 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/