Weird Arlo, So even as I restate my explicit question ...
"As working definitions what distinguishes the MoQish intellect from the SOMist ? (And vice-versa)." (You not only meta-debate the history how we came to be talking about coherence, you pursue the "why definition" debate further, despite me elaborating how this was not a big deal for me, after you'd said it was not about definitions for you either. I'm not denying any of this, anywhere, just summarising whilst trying to focus. I'm going to have to start tagging my mails with [main], [meta] and [aside].) Ian On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:03 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb...@psu.edu> wrote: > [Ian] > I wanted to talk about the intellectual level, you switched us to coherence... > > [Arlo] > ?? This entire topic was generated by 'coherence'. Our off-line posts were > about 'coherence'. Even as you brought it back on-line, you asked: > > [Ian previously] > Ian adds, would anyone like to continue, or join that up with the topics of > intellectual coherence as intellectual patterns - with or without working > definitions of coherence and intellect, which as Arlo already noted may be > ultimately unavoidable for some patterns? > > [Arlo] > And now I'm 'switching us' to coherence? Ian, my advice to you is to really > articulate exactly what you mean and what you want. > > [Ian] > As working definitions (*) what distinguishes the MoQish intellect from the > SOMist ? (And vice-versa). > > [Arlo] > As I said earlier, "SOMist" refers to a view that holds subjects and objects > as primary. So, what distinguishes 'SOMist intellect' from 'MOQish intellect' > is the in the former there are pre-experiential 'objects' and in the latter > there are patterns of value that derive from the experiential moment. This > relates to Paul's context one. Coming into 'MOQish intellect' from this > epistemological position, we are able to 'ontologically' consider > intellectual patterns to be "pragmatic high quality explanations of how the > world operates in accordance with the assumption that values are the > ubiquitous, empirical element of an evolving universe." > > If you're able to read 'working' into that, fine, as long as the rest of the > meaning is not lost. > > [Ian] > ...so the only reason for a definition is to "distinguish" terms in the > context of a current conversation ... > > [Arlo] > Disagree. The purpose of 'definition' is to move us towards 'high quality > explanations'. Sure, part of this is communication, but another part is > evaluative. Its not just that I am trying to communicate with you, I'm making > evaluations. I can tell you that I 'define' Quality as 'the absence of > Quality', and you'll know what I 'mean' when I use that term, but importantly > this definition allows for my ideas to be evaluated. > > 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
