Interesting. Some people argue that "human rights" are not intrinsic but are conferred, which of course means that they are "gifted" and can be "ungifted". After all, unless there is an enforced law guaranteeing certain rights of individuals, so-called rights are subject to the abuse of the powerful. So the only "intrinsic rights" are those periodically stipulated by law, an external device.
I suppose the source of this human rights as intrinsic begins with the Magna Carta (1215) which was intended to secure rights of landed Barons against the whimsy of the King in England. Another document associated with the MC was the Charter of The Forests, which was intended to secure certain rights of ordinary folk to use the royal lands for sustenance like wood, grazing, etc. When we speak of the MC we are oftentimes really speaking of the Charter of The Forests, more or less forgotten today. Check it out. I have three English ancestors who signed the first MC, so it's a favorite topic for me. wc ________________________________ From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 9:35:28 AM Subject: Re: Facture " All people are created equal" Only when it is concerning, ideally, human rights. Mental and physiological potentials are not. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Facture Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:05:41 -0700 (PDT) All claims for art identity are equal, meaning equally propositional. Some claims have more credence but they are still propositional. All people are created equal; some have more advantages than others. My logic is air tight, Miller, air tight. Solid as granite, shining like gold; learned, insightful, weighty and sharp as honed steel. Don't draw your sword on me unless you are prepared to carry your head home in a basket. Swoosh! wc ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:25:28 PM Subject: Re: Facture >Its a dialogic and synergetic model - it is what allows a work to exceed its times ("Art is the material (visual) assemblage that results form a non-disciplinary modeling of experience, data, information, and knowledge") As well as the reverse. (Just because something is different doesn't mean it's any better.) But isn't allowed/not allowed a dead issue by now, anyway? Hasn't it been beaten to death for at least 100 years? What's needed is a model for *enabled* -- and that's where some notion of discipline can be important. ***************************************************************************** ****************************** BTW -- within 24 hours William, our advocate of rigorous logic, has written: "in the case of art, all claims are equal" followed soon after by: "Some claims can be stronger than others" Not that logic can always be applied to questions of art and aesthetics, but if A = B, then A cannot be stronger or weaker than B. ____________________________________________________________ Click here to light up your life with a love spell! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxPPLl50IjlIITQYu1t1Ph72I hGvRcBdpZK5hMvabBSqlBKk9PH5te/
