Ham
Magnus added a 5th (MoQ) category:
That may be true for a static universe, but it isn't purely static,
there is DQ as well. To paraphrase Wilber in MoQeese:
Reality is both Being and Becoming.
Why isn't 'Being and Becoming' a valid interpretation of experiential
reality? It certainly represents the existentialist position of
Heidegger and Sartre. Moreover, it also takes "nothingness" into
account, as "becoming" infers coming into existence from nothing.
This might be a first, but I agree with you on that Ham. The MoQ isn't
alone on this, it's mostly common sense if you think about it. And I can
imagine that this isthe case for many other areas of the MoQ. And this
is not a bad thing, it probably just make it easier for outsiders to
understand it.
For example, in my essay "The levels undressed", I argue that the MoQ
levels can be mapped to different scientific fields, like physics,
chemistry, biology, etc. That's a strength! Then it can use the level
ladder to connect the dots *between* those, otherwise very separate,
fields of research. I mean, is it really feasible that mankind have
separated those scientific fields of research for so long (ok, I guess
it really isn't *that* long, but anyway), without good reason? Why would
everybody agree that physics, chemistry and biology are different, if
they metaphysically aren't?
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/md/archives.html
