Hi Arlo, no thanks for not addressing the point ;-) but OK, inserted ... On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:12 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Ian] > The real irony is that those who "defend" intellectual quality do "seem" to > do it from a SOMist intellectual perspective... > > [Arlo] > Who.
[IG] You for example would be as good as any - the thread was addressed to you (in response to what you were quoted as saying to me) But most remaining participants - given that most who disagree are slowly unsubscribing. But let's stick to the point. And on what basis do you interpret an "SOMist intellectual perspective". And, how would that contrast, in your opinion, with a nonSOMist "intellectual perspective". [IG] Hold your horses. That's going to get knotty with some working definitions and understandings needed to approach anywhere near agreed understandings. I did say address the point actually made, before moving on to this. Need a reminder? THIS IS THE POINT (after the preamble) ... so, to rephrase your "seem" sentence: Ian says - "In order to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns .... one does have to recognise that the dogma of what counts as coherent - valid argumentation - is itself such an intellectual pattern." > > 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 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
