Comment from Anon on the struan&morality thread.
Struan wrote:
3) If you want to derive what we *ought* to do from the *fact* of
complexity, you need to give a good reason why you are doing so. 'Starting'
from a Quality position is not sufficient if you want to establish Quality
as the primary empirical reality. Pirsig clearly realised that he had to try
and prove it if anyone half reasonable were to take him seriously. As I
don't consider the concept of everything being Quality is a coherent one,
let alone the actuality, you will see that this is another reason why I
reject the framework.
Anon thinks:
that if like Struan you want to separate *ought* from *fact*, then you need
to give a good reason why you are doing so. 'Starting' from an anti-quality
position is not sufficient of you want to establish anti-quality as the
primary empirical reality. Struan clearly realised that he had to try to
prove it if anyone half reasonable were to take him seriously. As I don't
consider the concept of some things being 'facts' and others being 'oughts' a
coherent one, let alone an actuality, you will see that this is another
reason why I reject Struan's framework.
later aligators
anon
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
