The surprised Bodvar to Andre about the 'inside-out-turn':
The MOQ has devoured the whole SOM and made its S/O distinction into its own intellectual level thus MOQ's 4th. level has nothing to do with SOM's "mind" and its 1st. level nothing to do with SOM's "matter". Andre: Taken by itself I have no objections to this at all Bodvar. But, for clarity's sake: the MOQ has not 'devoured' but expanded the conventional subject-object analysis by arguing that Quality is its ground and not the said S/O in the sense that Quality is first... out of which such processes/patterns as objects and subjects may be extracted as patterns of value. But I maintain that there can be different processes/patterns of value 'used'/'extracted'. I am beginning to wonder if you are using S/O to mean any form of dualism? If so, then please let me know as this throws a better light(for me) on your thesis. Bodvar: MOQ is out of the S/O Metaphysics - it rejects both matter and mind - while the somists will insist that MOQ is out of "intellect" (in its somish mind-like capacity) Andre: This sounds like Don Q having battle with the windmills. I am busy enough trying to fix the holes you prick in the dikes Bodvar!! Bodvar: Reconceptualized? That sounds like DMB where static means conceptual. Andre: DMB can speak for himself but I would suggest that the words used to describe experience at the intellectual level are such things as 'ideas', 'concepts', 'symbols', 'states','static','dynamic', 'I', 'We' etc. All these as 'figure of speeches', shortcuts, summaries for denoting processes to be skillfully manipulated (if one wishes) to reach wonderful insights, or fall flat on your face with (without having to go through that painful experience biologically). 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/md/archives.html
