[MD] What is the MOQ?

[Platt Holden]

> SA, Platt, Bo,
> 
> I'd also be tempted to disagree with Bob's simple statement to Baggini
> - at least with the suggestion that it is the whole story.
> 
> Bo's point, quoting SA, does not feel like a breakthrough to me.
> Clearly the DQ aspect of the MoQ is not defined within it, because
> it's not really "defined" anywhere ... it's the ineffable basis any
> metaphysics must have - in the MoQ case a dynamic basis for its own
> future.

Excellent. There isn't a logical metaphysics anywhere or any kind that 
doesn't have an "ineffable" basis,  if for no other reason than Godel's 
Theorem.  

> So Bob saying that the MOQ "is" the levels of static patterns
> it describes, is not inconsistent with saying that it is described as
> an intellectual pattern / on the intellectual level. (As you know I've
> never had any problem with the MoQ including its own definition - of
> all the levels - on one level. It's a strange loop that allows it to
> evolve from its original historical perspective.)

I would venture to guess that accepting strange loops, infinite regress, 
Godel's Theorem and the Uncertainly Principle as inherent limits to 
knowledge is a sign of wisdom. At least it would save a lot of bitterness 
and lubricate social interactions if everyone would recognize such limits 
and admit once in awhile, "Of course, I could be wrong." 

Platt