I still think the onus is on you to describe / explain / justify more on NAP... I'm with Marsha there Nick.
One substantive MoQish point. Yes obviously all physical actions (physical force & coercion) happen in the physical layer. The point is which better or worse patterns are allowed to govern them - hit a physical trespasser over the head with a physical club. Most higher level patterns involve realization in lower levels - thoughts in the brain, brain in the animal, animal made of physical material. The patterns cross levels and have elements (sub-patterns) in more than one level. Not all patterns are created equal. The higher patterns have "rights" over the lower ones - which limit their freedoms. We can debate the vagueries of exactly which kinds of patterns we are actually talking about in any given case, but the principle is MoQ 101. Ian On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:07 PM, blue-jay maple<[email protected]> wrote: > > Ian: >> Nick several people have already shown you where NAP (as per your >> definition - no physical enforcement of anything, except in defense of >> self and property) fails to meet the MoQ. >> In your words "Liberty is about no initiation of physical coercion" > > Nick: > Careful Ian. I don't think you mean this. > > Ian: >> Simplest example is intellect is allowed to over-rule social (by force >> if necessary), > > Nick: > Intellect doesn't physically coerce. > > Ian: >> ditto social over biological - (Kill even, kill >> completely, as Pirsig himself says) > > Nick: > Is social physical? And of course killing occurs in the > name of justice, and criminals do it too, but justice renews > and restores harmony. The NAP has to do with human nature. > So we're not going to get into animals and plants. I'm > talking about the natural law of human nature. > > Ian: >> DMB's style (agressive, ironically) is an acquired taste - but he >> knows and addresses the MoQish philosophical points (and the wider US >> Pragmatist context for that). If you found his recent contribution >> dismissive, it's because he is dismissing your aggressive ignorance of >> anything anyone is trying to point out to you about either the MoQ or >> your style of argument. > > Nick: > Well it was an intellectual exercise. Well liberty is a ground shaking event. > Not what I said about liberty or not what I said in general. Not about > me. It's what liberty means in the fullest extent. dmb doesn't know how to > sit down by a fire and converse. He's a lecturer. He could have tried to > humble > himself, but I had some humbling too when I learned about liberty. > > Ian: >> The onus is on you to show why your version / working definition of >> NAP is relevant or even interesting to MoQ'ers. As you say it's an >> ancient concept. Pirsig's more recent philosophy provided layers of >> patterns that guide the limits to freedoms - far from leaving them >> absent or arbitrary. > > Nick: > Well in my last posts I think you will see how far the picture has developed. > > :-) thank you > > Nick > > > -- > Be Yourself @ mail.com! > Choose From 200+ Email Addresses > Get a Free Account at www.mail.com > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
