[MD] is-ness

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ham

21 Aug. you wrote:

> Bo and DMB are currently debating over whether "an intellectual model
> of reality" must be included in reality itself.  They are talking past
> each other because "intellect" means something different to each of
> them.  It has not been properly defined by MoQ's author who dislikes
> definitions. Inconsistent use of terms leads to misconception and
> confusion.  This is particularly troublesome in metaphysics which is
> fundamental to all philosophy.

If we strike out "intellectual" from  "whether an intellectual model of 
reality must be included in reality itself." it's a different issue, 
namely the Godel Theorem about no theory/system being totally 
closed. This one must be really nutty to hope to avoid. 

What DMB and I discuss is whether the MOQ is a pattern of one of 
its own subsets - intellect. An impossibility in my opinion because it 
violates every logic there are. However you are right that the 
problem springs from the "intellect" term that means different 
things in SOM and MOQ. 

Seen from the SOM (MOQ's 4th level.) "intellect" means thinking 
or MIND, while it seen from the MOQ means the mind/matter 
distinction. Thus DMB works overtime to keep the MOQ inside 
SOM's mind/matter realm.

Bo