Is positional play more important than tactics...for beginners too?

Regardless of your tactical skill, it would seem that the majority of chess moves that one plays will not involve tactics.   A lower level player simply can't recognize, calculate, or effectively plan deep tactics, and  a higher-level player avoids and recognizes basic tactics so that most of her/his moves are strategic or positionally motivated anyway.

Perhaps then lower level players should heed Silman's advice and study positional play (in spite of obvious tactical weakness) more than tactics.  

Yet it is not exactly clear when one should start taking time away from tactics and shunting it to basic positional play books like The Amateur's Mind (when you stop hanging pieces?  when you can recognize 2- move tactics?  3-move tactics? etc), especially since one can always work on improving her/his tactical skills.

I appreciate anybody's thoughts/experiences/insights, lower and higher level players, thanks.

Yeah, you have great strategic plans and you don't see a losing exchange or a mate in 1. You have to be always alert IMHO Tactics is 75% and strategy 25%

This much is true -- but I think your first sentence contradicts this, you say:
"it would seem that the majority of chess moves that one plays will not involve tactics"
Positional moves have to involve tactics, they involve them in the un-played sidelines you don't see in the game.  Like you said the stronger players are aware of them and can play these positional moves they know are tactically sound -- their opponent's also know certain tactics don't work and continue the play where weaker players try tactics that don't work or play a positional move that fails to a combination.

I think basic positional concepts are important -- like you said many moves don't directly initiate a tactic, so players do need some guidance for what to do when "there's nothing to do" (at least nothing direct).  But to say "more than tactics" is a stretch.  If you're always falling into basic tactics it doesn't matter how positionally sound your play is.  Beginners, and amateurs in general (e.g. players like me), have too many tactical holes to be primarily concerned with any kind of positional play.

Like Silman also points out "tactics are the watchdogs of strategy"

Well books like The Amateur's Mind is great for amateurs.  Remember it's just a primer for positional play, and gives the basics (which I'd guess nearly all amateurs are lacking in, in one way or another).  So mastering that book wouldn't make you a positional player, just a more competent player you'll still use tons of tactics -- so it's a good book to pick up at any time, just be sure to get back to your tactical drills afterward

If your question is more along the lines of, when can someone focus more on positional play than tactics, then I think you have it about right, when nearly all basic tactics are apparent to the player. 

However saying "all" 2-move or 3-move tactics is a stretch, no one sees every variation 2-3 moves deep!  I think it was Botvinnik (former world champion) had an interesting quote after a tournament, where he commented he needed to practice seeing more 2-movers.  This means every level of player can strive to improve their accuracy.  Seeing 10 moves deep is easy even for amateurs after a certain point, but to see 10 accurate moves deep is rare and wonderful even at the very highest level.

So to sum up, tactics are the watchdog of strategy.  I think it's important for beginners to get to know the basics of positional play, but their primary focus should still be on tactics because this is what will lose and win games for them.  And more than just beginners, all amateurs (< ~2200) and class players in general (<2000) I think should strive for more accurate tactical play.

Thanks for the answers.  From a practical standpoint, time limits everything I'd like to study, so I just study tactics.  At some point, I have to start diving into positional play, which means reading a book, and it is hard to divide 45 minutes a day into 20 minutes tactics and 20 minutes positional play which would be the equivalent of reading a book like Amateur's Mind at a pace of 3-4 pages a day (not counting playing through the examples).  It just doesn't seem very fruitful to study positional play unless I have larger blocks of time to devote to it (meaning taking away time from tactics), which means I can't study in a "balanced" manner. 

So if one had enough time to study only a single aspect of the chess, then at what level of tactical proficiency should that "single aspect" be switched from tactics to positional play, if that makes sense?

Short story: You need both. You'll never get positions where tactics favor you if you are a positional moron and place your pieces and pawns on retarded squares. Also you need to be able to calculate a mate in one or be screwed.

 Positionally challenged square(s) would be better.

^ I lol'd IRL :D

Ask yourself why you're losing the games you lose.  Do you collapse under the pressure of a slow attack, or simply drop material in heavy complications?  Studying your weakest area in actual play is the best way to boost your playing strength.  Simply switch from area to area as you improve and see new, subtler problems arise.