DMB, Arlo et al, After I had said to Arlo ... >Rather than working the definition of SOMism to death, I'm asking what does >MoQish expression and argument have, that distinguishes it from SOMist >expression and argument. > > dmb said: > I think it's quite clear that there are all kinds of ways to describe > intellectual quality WITHOUT getting it mixed up with SOM.
Ian says - Agreed. Precisely what I've been saying for more years than I care to remember. To avoid the (unnecessary) mixing up, to avoid (unnecessarily) working the SOMism to death, let's disentangle any (low quality) narrow, GOF-SOMist-intellectual discourse from a wider (high quality, enlightened, extended) MoQ-ish-intellectual discourse - by expressing what more does the latter comprise, that makes it higher quality than the former. (And again, just to be clear, to recap, it's the discourse - the expression and argument - I'm talking about, not the underlying metaphysics, where I think we're all clear on MoQ-101, the primary S/O vs primary Q/DQ distinction.) 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
