Hi David S 21 Feb. :
> Hi meta gals and guys: > > I've only been posting on this (or any) blog for a month or so and two > things are very noticeable: > > No matter what topic you start with the conversation has an unlimited > opportunity to expand into other topics. This is opposite to my > previous experience with philosophy which has been to refine the topic > into more and more specific distinctions. I feel that we could go on > indefinitely with the "can of worms" we've opened under, The > Quality/MOQ dichotomy, subject line, and probably will. > > And, to someone who is used to consulting three or four books and > thinking about any single point for a month or so before tentatively > committing it to paper, you people move at a breakneck speed. This touched me. Throughout my "career" at the MOQ site I've seens so many entered, but been frustrated by the said speed and diversity. However, because the MOQ territory isn't charted we may get into tributaries and be lost for long periods. I compare it to the early Greek thinkers who we now hardly can discern the SOM content with. But they - or the next generations, got back to the main stream and the SOM got more and more SOM until it with - say - Descartes reached its mind/matter form that began to spawn paradoxes and irk thinkers until the most "dynamic" somist - Phaedrus - found the way out. Bo 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/
