In a message dated 7/19/01 6:44:17 PM GMT Daylight Time, skutvik@online.no
writes:
<< Finally for SQUONK
who said about my Interaction-Sensation.Emotion-Reason list
> This is a human view of the MOQ hierarchy. Its 'internalist'? The
list
> does not indicate culture for a start. Placebos may be valued in
some
> cultures?
Er...internalist in contrast to what? The MoQ doesn't recognise the
SOM dichotomies: "internal/external" and "cultural/natural" are
offshoots of the subject/object root.
I feel your list is implicitly a highly human centred view of quality.
That's fine by me. But...
I was concerned your list, 'Blind spots' human values on the cultural level
in a SOM manner. That is to say, for example, that the way we Sense may not
be a product of interaction, but may be a way of avoiding low quality
interactions.
Social patterns often blind spot low quality biological patterns; some
Americans can only refer to 'the John' and find the word 'Lavatory' offensive
to the point that certain biological functions almost cease to exist at the
social level!
> The mind/body split is a non-starter as far as i can see?
> The split is arbitrary and illusory.
Exactly, but SOM - like a mushroom - has an enormous
underground network and pops up at the most unexpected places.
People may declare the mind/body divide to be invalid, but then
they meet SOM in a new guise and don't recognise it.
I hope i have not met some in your list Bo? ;)
Thanks all who have read this far.
Bo
>>
All the best.
Squonk. :-)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:25 BST