Arlo, you said. "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. > > GOF-SOMist-intellect: subjects and objects are primary > MOQ-enlightened-intellect: Quality is primary >
[IG] Yes. Metaphysically. Definitively. MoQ-101. But that's true of SOMism and MOQism generally, not just intellect and not just intellectual expression and argumentation. So what I asked was working definitions or examples that would illustrate that distinction in how such intellect was used, in discussion, argument, expression. So indeed, you go on to "statements" .... > GOF-SOMist-intellect: statements are descriptions of reality [IG] Descriptions? OK. But descriptions of reality from the premise that subjects and objects are primary, so in some sense they are low-quality, or incomplete, descriptions of reality to a MoQist ? > MOQ-enlightened-intellect: statements are "pragmatic high quality > explanations" [IG] So, as predicted "high-quality" features highly in your definition, albeit "pragmatically". We've been here many times before. Who could/would disagree. This just seems to take us back full circle to definitional problems of what is "good" pragmatically. I was asking for examples of what would a pragmatic high-quality argument look like, in contrast to a merely SOMist description. > The problem is, to go all the way back to the beginning, is that you want to > equate 'coherence' with 'objectivist/scientistic/SOMist' (along with > definitional and logical), and this is a misuse of the term "SOM". > [IG] (Zzzzz STOP effing accusing the person!) No. I don't want to equate "coherence" with anything here unless you do. Clearly judging any standard of coherence depends on the patterns of value held, so it's going to be related, but I don't have some prior definition that is privileged here. I repeat I only used it as a topic because you introduced the straw-man that somehow I claimed "incoherence" was a necessary component (of MoQ-enlightened-intellectual expression). What I do say (using the words you suggest, from your reading of mine) is that objective, scientistic, definitional logic does necessarily privilege well-defined subjects and objects and well defined relations between these and is a feature of SOMist intellectual expression and argument. Pragmatically, MoQish argumentation also uses these, but it is MORE THAN these. Ian 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
