[MD] For Bo

[Ron Kulp]

Still looking Ron, for a copy I can post publicly ...

But here is a key quote from the conclusion.

"The future for moral debate ... has to be concerned with the
insurmountable dichotomy between complete and consistent moral
systems. As we can no longer expect a unique answer to every
situation, we have to decide which is more valuable." (Tom
Glendinning, 2008)

Ian

Ron:
which is an MoQ statement if I ever heard one.

Tom seems to be saying the same thing as I am.

Godels theorem supports Pirsigs rejection of
axiomatic deduction in lieu of the observance
of value relationships.

Ian prev:
> The point is many citations of Godel may indeed be abuses, but Godel
> is not irrelevant to explaining why moral philosophies can never be
> (logically) complete and consistent.

Platt:
Exactly. Or any other philosophies for that matter.

Ron:
Are you agreeing that no philosophy can be logically complete and
consistent?
or are you agreeing simply based on the fact that the theorem applies
to philosophy (which it does not). It only applies to philosophy in that
it 
discredits it's axiomatic logical assumptions as incomplete.

Godels theorem supports Pirsigs position that analytic is only one of
many ways to view reality, that SOM is not intellect but an intellectual
method.

That value is more empirical than logic.