SA, Platt, Bo, I'd also be tempted to disagree with Bob's simple statement to Baggini - at least with the suggestion that it is the whole story.
Bo's point, quoting SA, does not feel like a breakthrough to me. Clearly the DQ aspect of the MoQ is not defined within it, because it's not really "defined" anywhere ... it's the ineffable basis any metaphysics must have - in the MoQ case a dynamic basis for its own future. So Bob saying that the MOQ "is" the levels of static patterns it describes, is not inconsistent with saying that it is described as an intellectual pattern / on the intellectual level. (As you know I've never had any problem with the MoQ including its own definition - of all the levels - on one level. It's a strange loop that allows it to evolve from its original historical perspective.) Regards 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/
