Ian: > I still think the onus is on you to describe / explain / justify more > on NAP... I'm with Marsha there Nick.
Nick: I'm willing. Ian: > 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. Nick: In justice "intent" can't be realized by others. You could ask the person and you can infer a lot with scienctific tools to investigate a crime, let's say, but what was going on in the mind of the person can't be 100% substantiated. Cause the person could lie. Now in your example of a trespasser being hit over the head with a club. This is understood as inquiring into repercussions against the violator of property rights. I would need to know more context to understand if the property owner was justified in hitting the trespasser over the head with a club. Proportionality is an important consideration in what in law is called repercussion. So if the property owner went too far, then he or she could be brought under criminal charges as well. Repercussions, admittedly, are not as yet universally known. But proportionality is helpful. Yet let's take the case of a rapist. Does one rape back in proportionality to achieve repercussion? No, obviously not. There's a spectrum to this that is currently in debate. On the one hand there are those that discuss retribution so this may include hanging the criminal. I find that to be too much. I lean towards the other side that includes restitution and ostracation if necessary. Also this goes as far as ridding prisons quite possible in both cases, but it's still a debatable issue. Ian: > 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. Nick: Well, the NAP is an intellectual pattern. It is an intellectual principle. Is that what you want to know? So are natural rights. They are intellectual abstractions that have been reasoned to be universally applicable. Pirsig brought these up in Lila I believe. Freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty, etc... 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/
