dmb quoted Pirsig:
"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 replied:
I'm a bit confused.
dmb says:
Yes, I agree.
Steve continued:
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."
dmb says:
As the quote should have made clear to you, it is the metaphysics of substance
(SOM) that says "you can't get oughts from ises" and the MOQ disagrees with
that. The MOQ says facts ARE values. The MOQ says the physical order of the
universe IS the moral order of the universe. That's how the MOQ destroys the
gap between them.
And that, sir, is why I complained about the absence of what Pirsig says on the
topic. You're talking about a gap that does not exist in the MOQ and that only
demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part. Even when I show you how and
why this issue is irrelevant, you still don't see it.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
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
