Craig, previously] > Is it "low Quality" because it is S/O-thinking? If so, do you have an > example?
[Arlo] > The myth of the "objective observer" that had dominated > anthropology and other schools of thought. Or the type of thinking > that does not see rotisserie building as an form of art. These are not good examples. For instance, an artist (subject) can see his building a rotisserie as an object of art. There are countless examples of low quality S/O thinking, just as there are countless examples of low quality MoQ thinking (see archives). You need an example where the low quality is BECAUSE it is S/O thinking (i.e., where S/O thinking could not have had a good quality result.) MoQ thinking might always be better than S/O thinking, but it doesn't follow that S/O thinking is low quality. Craig 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/
