Krim yes, if you lose the M from SOM it is a way to speak that has its uses, and yes the M in MOQ is a problem, but only in theory, as MOQ has little influence and has stated qualifications, but probably not enough I'd say, if you push me. Somehow we need a provisional metaphysics.
DM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:13 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Social Darwinism > [David M] > But how can you explain this difference betwen animate and inanimate > patterns/processes. Seems to assume SOM to me? The MOQ enables > us to see it another way, some of us here think this is a way that makes > more sense, at least it offers a less dualistic way to look at what we > experience. > > [Krimel] > Nature offers up a variety of forms of animation; dust devils, fire, > lightening, brains. Taking subjects and objects seriously does not confer > upon them metaphysical significance. > > > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
