Andre & Cristoffer 30 Sep. Andre wrote:
> My understanding of the matter is that everyone dislike to many of the > others view too much for this to be possible. Some here don't even > agree with the fundamentals. But perhaps that isn't relevant, at least > not right now. I think, that the spreading of the general idea is the > most important thing still, and for that we have Lila. Bodvar feels, > and I agree, that we need proper definitions of the levels to be able > to seriously promote this view - the only problem is that here is > where we REALLY differ in opinion. Welcome to the bedlam Andre good to have another European on board, and thanks to Chris for mentioning me (agreement there) I read you introduction Andre and I used to welcome newcomers before, but after ten years of discussing the MOQ and being a septuagenarian now, I'm reeling. Regarding finances and politics I always feel out of my depth, but I think it's beyond MOQ's depth too it's mesh far to coarse to catch if one financial institution is "intellect" and another "social" or if capitalism is dynamic in addition. However as I discuss with the other veteran (not of age) Magnus the MOQ can't improve on science but it will certainly influence our way of regarding science - THAT most of all because it is intellect's spearhead and intellect a "level" only known in the MOQ. OK here I go again ;-) Bodvar 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/
