I am sort of pragmatic and think that a communication that work is a good communication. If it doesn't, what can you do about it? Can you change the sender or the receiver? Is it the amount, the form or the value that is wrong? Can you change the receivers interests or can you change your message to adapt to their interest?
I think that a good way to improve the communication is to reformulate the message.
I had too much too say so I wrote a book instead of adding long time-consuming threads to the discussion.
See if you can find a reviewing person in your country, or write a review yourself. I'll give you a promo code for a free copy of my book for that.
31 maj 2012 kl. 10.57 skrev Tuukka Virtaperko:
> Lately I've had a hard time figuring out why should I participate in discussion in the MOQ community. Not one person in the world understands my work. The mathematical structure of my metaphysics is understood by some, although none of them (with the possible exception of Tim) apparently belongs to the MOQ community. The maths portion describes the form of the SOQ but not the content. Nobody has shown definite interest in the metaphysical content of the work, that is, why there should be normative or aesthetic value, or why subjective value should be split into levels of static value just like objective value. Ant had reached the point of actually being able to question the latter notion and the thoughts underlying it, but as we didn't quite agree, the whole debate was just left inconclusive. Some ask me why I'm doing this, or that I should "sell" my idea to them. This mostly indicates that the idea already failed to sell itself. Or what do they expect? That I tell them the
SOQ are a foundation for a very intelligent AI, even though I can't prove it? That I tell them the SOQ are "the truth"?