Hi and goodbye Magnus
Bye again Bo, Hi everyone else
Magnus:
I've spent quite a bit of thinking on the levels and I'd stick my nose
out and say that I have a good understanding of what constitutes a new
level. It has nothing to do with what appeals to me, you or anyone.
It's simply completely different ways to build stuff.
Bo:
What the MOQ doesn't need is more obscure levels. No doubt you
have been thinking, but I'm afraid it's a scientific - physicist-like - kind
of thinking like Doug Renselle and his inscrutable tables of sub-
inorganic - quantum - levels. The MOQ is more about the moral
struggles that occur in the wake of the static train, which is what
gives it its enormous explanatory power.
Morality = Quality = Reality. Have you forgotten?
The static levels are not just moral, but also real, and as such open to
scientific study. At least the static part of the levels can be thoroughly
investigated, and that's exactly what the levels are, static! They describe the
static side of Qu/re-ality. But you and many others have such a problem seeing
what is static and what is not, so the levels get all blurred up.
What struggles and moral
codes forming between some obscure sub-inorganic isn't very
instrumental. What appeals is what have Quality and yours has zero
such, l should have known better.
Do you really think the inner workings of the universe, i.e. how matter, animals
and humans are constructed, changes as you change your mind? Does it change as
we discuss them here?
Magnus
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/
