Hi Marsha. 12 February you wrote:
Chis to Bo: > > >If anyone can point to some elaborate, abstract thoughts that did > > >not serve the values of the social level or the biological and were > > >clearly not a part of a S/O distinction(and was not the MOQ) - > > >would that prove the SOL invalid? Marsha: > Re: Above question? Bo: I responded before I saw your comments, but as you se I interpreted Chris' question as pertaining to the many efforts to undermine the SOL by pointing to non-S/O intellectual patterns (an oxymoron) most prominently Pirsig's in "Lila's Child" about formal logic, mathematics a, computer language. > Is it elaborate? To me the question was clear (elaborated) enough. > Does it serve the social or biological levels? What serves? The question, or? > Does it represent subject-object distinction? ?? > Is it the MOQ? Too cryptic, you have to elaborate . Bo 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/
