Hi DMB,
> dmb says: > > "This problem of trying to describe value in terms of substance has been the > problem of a smaller container trying to contain a larger one. Value is not a > subspecies of substance. [You can't get oughts from ises.] Substance is a > subspecies of value. When you reverse the container process and define > substance in terms of value the mystery disappears: substance is a 'stable > patterns of inorganic values.' The problem then disappears. The world of > objects and the world of values is unified."(Lila p101) Steve: I'm a bit confused. Previously you chided me with, "don't you see how the MOQ destroys this gap? The ises are oughts in the MOQ. Everything is derived from value," but now you seem to be saying that the MOQ gives a metaphysical foundation for this get when you now say "You can't get oughts from ises." I thought you were closer to being right when you said "the ises are oughts" though I don't think that ises and oughts are just the same thing. Ises are necessarily entangled with oughts since as Pirsig said, "substance is a subspecies of value" and as Dewey said "reality is an evaluative term." Facts and ises can't float free of values any more than oughts can since we only ever make the assertions of ises and oughts that we do in relation to ends and means we value. Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
