Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Mon, 8 Jun 1998 16:13:20 +0100
Hi Squad,
THEO
>And you are, by your own admission, proposing a variant of SOM. You are
>relying upon an observer and an observed for Quality ...
I am indeed! Furthermore, I don't think anyone really has a way to
completely obliterate SO. In classical SOM, the "observed" is fixed and
will look the same to any "objective" observer. In MoQ the
observed/observer split depends entirely on the context of the
observation.
>Quality IS prior to subjects and objects - that's why its a
metaphysics in its
>own right and not a branch of SOM.
I'm not claiming this. I'm suggesting that SOM is a special case or
branch of MoQ, just as Relativity accepts the validity of Newton's laws
at low velocities.
The only thing wrong with classical SOM is that it thinks itself
absolute and complete. But ... ****** SOM is a myth *****. That's an
absolute condemnation in SOM terms. However, it's fine to be a myth in
MoQ terms, and SOM may be the most successful myth so far.
Jonathan B. Marder <MARDER@agri.huji.ac.il>
Department of Agricultural Botany, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Faculty of Agriculture, P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
Phone: +972 8 9481918 Fax: +972 8 9467763
Web page: http://www.agri.huji.ac.il/~marder
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST