Denis:
I'm not sure how much detail I can go into in this post. I don't have much
time, but there are two major points where we disagree. If I read your most
recent post correctly, we disagree about the static/Dynamic split. You seem
to be saying it is just a matter of our perceptions. And I think you go way
too far with the concept of "many truths". Together they have the effect of
saying that reality is just in our heads AND the truth is just whatever we
like. What a mess!
I'll assume that you've read my most recent efforts, one on each forum, and
not repeat myself. But I'll add to the ideas there and say simply; The MOQ
does not undo our intellectual heritage, throw away the progress of
civilization or abandon the fruits of science. It transcends those things,
which necessarily means that ideas about subjects and objects are not
replaced with undifferentiated nothingness or any other gooey non-sense. No
way. Subjects and objects and the world and all our science in enfolded and
incorporated into a larger view. The MOQ is at the front edge of that moving
train, but that isn't supposed to destroy the next car back. Denis, you
can't ignore prior distinctions in the name of the MOQ. But you could use
the MOQ to re-interpet and further clarify those old distinctions. The MOQ
is better than SOM because its more inclusive, it explains more, but that
doesn't mean we simply adopt all the views that are opposite of the SOM, we
just add to it. See?
The MOQ doesn't erase lines, it draws new ones. See?
Out of time for now, but if you're actually interested I'll be happy to
spend more later, DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST