[MD] For Bo

[Platt Holden]

> 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?

Yes -- the key word being "complete."

> 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.

The theorem applies to any logical, i.e., intelligible system including 
philosophy.

> 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.

The MOQ uses logic to make the case that logic is not all there is.