[Ian] Hi Arlo, no thanks for not addressing the point ;-) but OK, inserted ...
[Arlo] I didn't think you made a point that warranted addressing, apart from accusations of "SOMist intellectual perspective" that you hadn't defined. But, okay, let's see what kind of 'addressing' I can give this. [Ian] "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." [Arlo] What is it you'd like me to address? You restated my evaluation of your posts to express what you think better states your position. Okay. First, I'd say you remain 'stuck' in viewing intellectual qualities like coherence and precision as 'dogma' or 'SOMist', and you seem to equate "valid argumentation" as something that 'restricts' intellectual quality. Given this, I am not sure what you THINK would evidence high quality intellectual patterns, but I would still evaluate your position has stuck in "intellect=SOM". This is why I jumped to your other point. Since you equate 'coherence' and (now) 'valid argumentation' as SOMist (and over several recent emails, as I pointed out), rather than as exemplars of high quality intellectual patterns, I asked what you consider to be 'non-SOMist' intellectual patterns. In other words, by regressing "dogma" back to even include a concept like "coherence", you're moving into the same sort of vacuous nihilism that the MOQ argues against. And I guess this hinges on this question. "Coherence" is an intellectual pattern, but is it an "SOMist intellectual pattern"? If so, are you suggesting we redefine 'coherence', and how? Or, are you suggesting that incoherent intellectual patterns are what the MOQ offers to counter "SOMist intellect"? Or...? 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
