[Ian]
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.
[Arlo]
What value does inserting "well defined" into this statement serve? If I
restate it without, it appears to make more sense.
{Arlo restates]
What I do say (using the words you suggest, from your reading of mine)is that
objective, scientistic, definitional logic does necessarily privilege subjects
and objects and relations between these and is a feature of SOMist intellectual
expression and argument.
[Arlo continues]
I'll ask, since you find my 'accusations' unfair, is your inclusion of 'well
defined' meant to imply/suggest that 'well defined' equates with "SOM"? If not,
why add it? Can there be "well defined" non-SOMist/MOQish intellectual
patterns? (I suppose I should make a comment that do we need to differentiate
"poorly defined" (which is what I'd argue violates coherence) from "undefined"
(which, as I mentioned, does not suggest incoherence), but maybe that can be
kept in mind.)
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
