[Steve]
> The objects in the MOQ refer to Definition #1.
> Objects are
> biological patterns and
> inorganic patterns, not thoughts or social
> patterns... It seems to me
> that in Definition #5 subjects can also be objects.
> Thus any distinction between them is meaningless.
Yeaper. Bo's saying subjects are people's mind,
but then when God is thrown in, God is the subject and
people become the objects. It seems like a childs
game where the rules are made up as one goes along.
Context has much to do with the defining as well.
Subjects seem to follow thoughts, but then thoughts
can be objects that somebody can manipulate and
exercise within ones mind, so, the subject does the
manipulating, but now I've made the manipulator an
object to discuss, etc... etc... This so called great
S/O divide has some problems, and an S can be an O one
moment and an O can be an S another moment. One might
as well call the divide a light red/pink divide. One
will get just as far. The information is a bit
useless.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
