Nick, the repelling trespassers was your example, not mine. You are complicating - confounding - the picture much too fast. Everything from property rights to rape, retribution and hanging all in one para.
The answer cannot be that three letters (NAP) is an intellectual pattern therefore it's the answer to all those issues. Patterns (even intellectual patterns) are not created equal. The onus, remember. What is your version of NAP, how does it relate to MoQ and what is better about it ? If your message is the revelation that freedom is a good thing, then that is not new to anyone. The devil is in the detail. Ian On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:44 PM, blue-jay maple<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/ > 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/
