> 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.
Excellent. There isn't a logical metaphysics anywhere or any kind that doesn't have an "ineffable" basis, if for no other reason than Godel's Theorem. > 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.) I would venture to guess that accepting strange loops, infinite regress, Godel's Theorem and the Uncertainly Principle as inherent limits to knowledge is a sign of wisdom. At least it would save a lot of bitterness and lubricate social interactions if everyone would recognize such limits and admit once in awhile, "Of course, I could be wrong." Platt 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/
