Hi Soj,
Let me add to the discussion.
My take on the Hume comment (which I believe was promptly violated by Hume
within a few pages of making it) is that value systems based upon rationality
eventually come to the point where they must rely upon value itself. In
fact, to rely on rationality is itself a value choice as opposed to
intuition, instinct, emotion, "human nature" or the word of God.
So.... is it reasonable to derive ought from is? It seems to me that in the
MOQ that they are in the end the same. That which is (reality) is
experience. And experience is value. So in the end we have a tautology.
>From a different perspective, the good ol' M of Q states that the best
explanation of our experience is that it is derived from a billion years of
chains of oughts -- of value judgements that he logically divides into 4
types that evolve from/into each other. So, again, what IS, is also derived
from ought.
Finally, doesn't the MOQ point out that IS is the ultimate OUGHT? If we step
back and trace the dynamic path that Pirsig traces through an evolution of
patterns of increasing complexity and versatility and morality and
dynamicness and experience and quality, doesn't the philosophy point to the
very value of ISNESS? Doesn't it point to fresh experience that grows,
creates, surprises and changes with minimal destruction? Doesn't it point to
life? To emergence? To IS? To OUGHT?
I don't know.... but it kinda seems that way to me.....Let me know ya'lls
thoughts.
Rog
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
