[MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

[Magnus Berg]

> Hi and goodbye Magnus

Bye again Bo, Hi everyone else

Magnus:
>> I've spent quite a bit of thinking on the levels and I'd stick my nose
>> out and say that I have a good understanding of what constitutes a new
>> level. It has nothing to do with what appeals to me, you or anyone.
>> It's simply completely different ways to build stuff.

Bo:
> What the MOQ doesn't need is more obscure levels. No doubt you
> have been thinking, but I'm afraid it's a scientific - physicist-like - kind
> of thinking like Doug Renselle and his inscrutable tables of sub-
> inorganic - quantum - levels. The MOQ is more about the moral
> struggles that occur in the wake of the static train,  which  is what
> gives it its enormous explanatory power.

Morality = Quality = Reality. Have you forgotten?

The static levels are not just moral, but also real, and as such open to 
scientific study. At least the static part of the levels can be thoroughly 
investigated, and that's exactly what the levels are, static! They describe the 
static side of Qu/re-ality. But you and many others have such a problem seeing 
what is static and what is not, so the levels get all blurred up.

> What struggles and moral
> codes forming between some obscure sub-inorganic isn't very
> instrumental. What appeals is what have Quality and yours has zero
> such, l should have known better.

Do you really think the inner workings of the universe, i.e. how matter, animals 
and humans are constructed, changes as you change your mind? Does it change as 
we discuss them here?

	Magnus