[MD] (Fwd) Re: A World of Objects

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Christoffer

2 April you wrote:

> Ah, I'm sorry I didn't intend to make it a april joke, I was using
> another computer and something must have gone wrong there. In that
> message somewhere I stated  - in regard to your remark about the
> finger moon pointing - that I think you are right: A metaphysical
> system must incorporate e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g else it has failed. I do
> think that your SOL makes for a complete metaphysical system, since
> it incorporates everything. The question of weather or not it is too
> stale or any other thing is a different discussion. So I must
> withdraw my earlier comment and say that this finger pointing thing
> really hurts the MOQ - a metaphysical system must say that
> everything is incorporated within it.

Yes, you did call it "the best finger", and thank you for that and I also 
see that you see, let me just repeat. What haunts the MOQ is the 
notion of it being just some arbitrary theory meaning  that any  divide, 
trisecting, quartering, whatever is just as good - for instance SOM - 
had people only known that the moon was Quality (something Pirsig's 
hints to in Lila's Child by calling SOM a Quality Metaphysics only S/O-
divided) yet no-one sees any difference between a Q-SOM and the 
ordinary kind. A metaphysics in the strong sense creates what the 
moon is.

But again, once the metaphysical "M" is the removed the S/O 
distinction becomes the highest and best static value.    

> And also I see what you are saying about the MOQ meta-level; the Moq
> isn't an intellectual pattern as such, it is the frame of reference
> that says that there IS such a thing as intellectual patterns.
> Right?

>From the depth of my heart: YES!!!!!

See you

Bo