My vote should go for #6, but it doesn't seem to make a difference by
now. So I'll go with the consensus and vote for #9. But you'll pay for
that... ;)
Anyway, it's true perhaps we should create a separate forum for it. The
whole purpose of the focus forum was to *develop* the MOQ. While going
back to the basics will be interesting, I don't believe we'll ever come
to total agreement on Lila's meaning. Already ideological schisms are
coming up (Bodvar's SOLAQI, my Language as Intellect's DNA, the very
good question of proposal #2, etc.). We should regard this not as
confusion, but as a "proof" of the MOQ capacity for Dynamism, IMHO. The
whole purpose of a new Metaphysics is to highlight the problems that
couldn't be expressed under the old paradigm. That a variety of answers
come up is good news, not bad ones. Science didn't go that far by
enforcing dull conformity to old dogma, but by offering various answers
and challenging old ones.
This month will be challenging, at least by defining what our axioms
are. But this will only be productive if by the end we produce a good
and complete rendering of both our agreements and disagreements. It'd be
interesting as an "extended FAQ" of the MOQ for newcomers, for example.
Let's do it.
Be good
Denis
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
