Marsha. 14 Nov. you wrote:
Ham: > > > Despite the confusion, it's apparent that at least three of us > > > understand that the "patterning" of Value is conceptual, which is > > > to say that objective phenomena are the intellectual constructs of > > > value perception. > >Bo: > >No confusion anywhere. The patterns being conceptual!!! Christ, > >what's not conceptual in the sense of being conveyed by language? Marsha: > While I understand spovs to be conceptual, no way do I understand that > to mean they are confined to language. Images may be part of any > spov, or there may be an auditory part of a spov. What do you think? Methinks that concepts (ideas) belongs to intellect's subjective realm different from its objective one. Nothing wrong with the intellectual level if understood in its MOQ context, namely that its subjective and objective halves are static parts of an aggregate, none having the old SOM-ish significance. But when you point to spovs as conceptual yet not confined to language, it sounds like you are in a no-man's-land between SOM and MOQ. In SOM language is manipulation of concepts and as we are "suspended in language" everything is "conceptual". In MOQ (that doesn't have any S/O distinction outside intellect) language is merely a social pattern that intellect adapted for it's own S/O purpose ... and the MOQ now uses for its DQ/SQ purpose. Yet, your assertion that the spovs are "conceptual" sounds as different from something non-conceptual - in a metaphysical sense - and that SOM is back. Back to square one. 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/
