[MD] Language

[craigerb at comcast.net]

Craig, previously] 
> Is it "low Quality" because it is S/O-thinking? If so, do you have an example? 

[Arlo] 
> The myth of the "objective observer" that had dominated 
> anthropology and other schools of thought. Or the type of thinking 
> that does not see rotisserie building as an form of art. 

These are not good examples.  For instance, an artist (subject) can 
see his building a rotisserie as an object of art. 
There are countless examples of low quality S/O thinking, 

just as there are countless examples of low quality MoQ thinking 
(see archives). 
You need an example where the low quality is BECAUSE it is 
S/O thinking (i.e., where S/O thinking could not have had a 
good quality result.) 
MoQ thinking might always be better than S/O thinking, but it doesn't 
follow that S/O thinking is low quality. 
Craig