Jeez - as I say, life's too short. Ian
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:21 PM, blue-jay maple<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/ > 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/
