Bo said: DMB does not say it here, but he went on to equate SOM S/O split with MOQ's "dynamic/static" and this is is about as ... I'm speechless.
dmb says:I did not say it here, I did not say it there and I did not say it anywhere. Nor do I think it. Quite the opposite. I keep saying that subjects and objects are static concepts. They are secondary intellectual distinctions. I think you are hopelessly confused about every operative term and I really don't have the time to untangle any of your misconceptions today. But I would point out one source of confusion. You're mixing up the MOQ's claims about the evolutionary shift from the social to the intellectual levels with the MOQ's epistemological claims. Radical empiricism has nothing to do with cultural development. By confusing the two, terms such as "pre-conceptual" or "pre-intellectual" (terms which are interchangeable and mean exactly the same thing) are taken to mean social or pre-Socratic or mythological. But these terms have nothing to do with that historical development. They are interchangeable with "pure experience" and the "primary empirical reality" and do not in any way refer to the social level of static patterns. Instead, those terms refer to unpatterned experience. They refer to DQ and not to any kind of static patterns. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009 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/
