> DM: Excatly my point, we can talk SQ and DQ about patterns that are either > more or less public or private, to start talking about subjective or > objective seems to make some funny distinction between objective and > subjective patterns. > > [Krimel] > The distinction lies not in the patterns but in the perception of the > patterns. There is a qualitative difference. This is a distinction that > must > be learned. Infants do not make clear distinctions between where their > bodies begin and end. Nor are they able to understand that others have > knowledge that they do not have. The ability to distinguish between me and > not me develops with experience and with maturation of the nervous system.
DM: Yes it is learned, and it is a distinction, but my suggestion is that the S/O distinction tries to build something ontoligical on something that is just an aspect of experience, one that is about what experiences we share and those we don't, and this is not an impermeable distinction. [Krimel] What is innate is subjective experience. The ability to distinguish objective experience must be learned. It is ontological in the sense that these are different methods of knowing. I would maintain that they are qualitatively different even irreducibly different. 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/
