David M, Ham, et al ... Ham suspects arguments for their own sake; David, you say > > I think the MOQ is a metaphysics, it is not about describing > any distinction about the real and apparent but all about > articulating our most basic categories used to describe experience. >
I agree .... I'm saying the "argument" about whether it is a metaphysics or not is pointless, and the argument about whether as a metaphysics it establishes some fundamental ontology is also pointless. (The negation of the existence of a metaphysics says no more than the assertion. The argument is to say this is not an argument I want to have.) That's because whatever it is, MoQ is as you say about descriptions of experience - more epistemological than ontological. But again, it is what it is, the backward pigeon-holing doesn't help, except to understand how it arose in the context of existing philosophy. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
