Ian: > Nick, the repelling trespassers was your example, not mine. Nick: I quote you from below:
"The point is which better or worse patterns are > >> allowed to govern them - hit a physical trespasser over the head with > >> a physical club." You brought that up. Ian: > You are complicating - confounding - the picture much too fast. > Everything from property rights to rape, retribution and hanging all > in one para. Nick: Sorry. I'll slow down. My fault. :-) Ian: > 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. Nick: Oh but it is. It has been thoroughly put through the ringers in numerous, countless contrived situations. Numerous papers are written about it. Books discuss it. This is not a new concept and has been around for centuries. Ian: > 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. Nick: Yes, the devil is in the detail. Freedom is a good thing. But what does liberty actually mean? It has a definition. It has had one for centuries. It is the absence of initiating physical coercion. It is a humanly applied understanding. Nick > 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/ > -- 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/
