Ian: Ron, SA, (Bo) that's where you're being a too hard on Bo, but if Bo isn't coming back to my point, not sure what I can do to help.
Yes the core of any metaphysics is axiomatic, and any choice of direction of ontological splitting, is just that a "deemed" choice. There cannot be any fundamental / defintive statement of why any one choice is better ... other than it works for as much of the experienced world as possible with minimum inconsistency and maximum completeness - of course nothing can be entirely complete AND consistent - so yet more choice about what is "best". Do we really need anyone to tell us these things ? Bo can't because no-one can, no-one should be expected to. The second aspect of debating with Bo whether the Intellectual (and social layers) are just a version of objectivism / SOMism is really just an evolving linguistic problem - ie what's in a name historically ... where I've parted company with Bo before ... but not really a big deal from my perspective. Ron: Hello Ian, thanks for trying to mediate, I'm not bashing Bo, I just wish He'd put his money where his mouth is. The interesting thing about the MoQ Is that it really does not rely on a basic principle that is assumed to be true without proof. Which is what an axiom is. It places proof in experience it is verifiable. 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/
