On 26 Mar 2002 at 12:02, Wim Nusselder wrote:
> You ask Glenn 26/3 10:15 +0100:
> 'what do you think about the logic (flaw or not)
> that has bothered me all the time, namely that of the MOQ claiming to
> be an intellectual pattern and thus a creation of one of its own
> lesser parts. This grated my logical nerve until I found a respite in
> the so-called SOL interpretation: That the MoQ is something beyond
> intellect, which in this context becomes SOM.'
> Could your logical nerve be spared by considering that an
> autobiography, a diary etc. can be a creation of one of the characters
> they describe? Can't an intellectual pattern of values be
> auto-referential? Please stick to your
> MoQ-as-rebel-intellectual-pattern-of-values interpretation...
Hi Wim
Point taken (shut up!) A few comments though. Self-referential would have
been OK and is what the MOQ as something beyond intellect is. It becomes
itself! But the MOQ as an integrated part of intellect can be compared to a
dogma of Christianity saying that God and the world was created by Christ.
Mark you. That's exactly what happened in the sense that Jesus as an
historical person changed the Old Testament Jahve into the Christian God,
but that can't be part of the theory (dogma). Just like Gravity came into being
with Newton, but once this theory was accepted it reached backward and
changed the past into a new pattern. This is the enormity of a metaphysics: It
changes everything. EVERY LAST BIT!
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:02:04 BST