Hi Ron, Here are my responses as requested.
I'm not trying to be nit-picky below. I'm just clarifying my position instead of saying: agree, agree, agree (though we probably do agree). Our disagreements come in when we start talking about social and intellectual patterns. >To me, the most fundamental differences between MoQ >And SOM are: > >1. Reality is a subjective interpretation. Steve: I think at the start the MOQ wants to do away with this sort of subjective/objective knowledge distinction completely but then brings back the terms without the metaphysical distinction. Objective usually refers to the things that are measureable with scientific instruments and that people tend to agree on (biological and inorganic patterns) and subjective refers to the things that are not measureable with such instruments and people tend to disagree on (social and intellectual patterns). This use of subjective and objective is in line with everyday use of the terms but does not include the metaphysical subjective/objective knowledge distinction. >2. Absolute objective reality does not exist. The MOQ just says that this objective reality is an idea, and the "what really exists?" question is something that we can talk about allowing for it to be rewritten as new data comes in. It's not that objective reality doesn't exist for the MOQer. it's just that it's existence is not presupposed as a basic premis as it is for SOM. >3. All reality is patterns of value, every last bit. Yes. Except for DQ. Regards, Steve 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/
