[MD] A larger system of understanding

[Magnus Berg]

Ham

> Magnus added a 5th (MoQ) category:
>
>> That may be true for a static universe, but it isn't purely static,
>> there is DQ as well. To paraphrase Wilber in MoQeese:
>>
>> Reality is both Being and Becoming.
>
> Why isn't 'Being and Becoming' a valid interpretation of experiential
> reality? It certainly represents the existentialist position of
> Heidegger and Sartre. Moreover, it also takes "nothingness" into
> account, as "becoming" infers coming into existence from nothing.

This might be a first, but I agree with you on that Ham. The MoQ isn't 
alone on this, it's mostly common sense if you think about it. And I can 
imagine that this isthe  case for many other areas of the MoQ. And this 
is not a bad thing, it probably just make it easier for outsiders to 
understand it.

For example, in my essay "The levels undressed", I argue that the MoQ 
levels can be mapped to different scientific fields, like physics, 
chemistry, biology, etc. That's a strength! Then it can use the level 
ladder to connect the dots *between* those, otherwise very separate, 
fields of research. I mean, is it really feasible that mankind have 
separated those scientific fields of research for so long (ok, I guess 
it really isn't *that* long, but anyway), without good reason? Why would 
everybody agree that physics, chemistry and biology are different, if 
they metaphysically aren't?

	Magnus