Bo, all your points are rhetoric against people - very low quality arguments from you.
eg No one has ever said "and thus is at its mercy". You made that up as a straw man. And your choice of the word mercy - or maybe just a stock English phrase ? - suggests to me you have a very primitive view of evolution. And yes I am still resident in Norway, but I didn't really notice what the furore over Hjernevask was about. (I will still be working for a Norwegian company, but UK resident again from June) I never managed to get past the Janteloven ;-) Regards Ian On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:34 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Ian, All. > > 20 Apr.: > > Bo to Dave: >> "All levels have been "leading edges" and have in turn spawned new >> levels. Intellect has now spawned the MOQ and is left as static as >> static comes. If intellect is seen as "most dynamic" and able of >> coming up with (what you see as intellectual patterns) new ideas - >> even a new metaphysics that denounces the MOQ - i.e. abolishes the >> whole moral level hierarchy - what then?" > > Ian >> Almost, but not quite. The newly (more dynamic) MOQ level is allowed to >> dominate new "intelectual" patterns arising from the (static) >> intellectual level,..... > > At least you see the MOQ as a (meta-) level that contains, and thus > dominates, the intellectual level ("allows" it things) and THAT is the > point. While DMB and the "weak" interpreters says that the MOQ is > contained by the intellectual level and thus is at its mercy. If a new > intellectual idea, theory, metaphysics (which is DMB's definition of > In.PoVs) lodges on top of the MOQ it will become a lower intellectual > value. What then? > >> ...... BUT we are allowed to believe that the MoQish level might >> improve on itself in the course of time. If it's a MOQish improvement, >> why would we MOQists fight it? > > It? Do you mean the SOL? You show that you are a MOQist by > starting to lean towards the SOL, while those dead against are so > because they have never understood the MOQ, their moqism just > more somism. > > Bodvar > > > PS. > Are you still in this country? Have you noticed the furor over the > "Brainwash" (Hjernevask) TV program where the nature/nurture > enigma is rehashed again and the nature (gene) camp hits back on > the sociologists . All is based on SOM's impossible S/O dichotomy.that > has no solution. I have tried to reach one of the the Oslo papers with a > letter about the MOQ, but ...alas not having an academic title. > > > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
