Bob wrote: <<The only explanation I've been able to come up with is: let's say gravity (but not the 'law of gravity') existed before we did. Primitive humans had a simple 'poor Quality' law of gravity: "Things fall when dropped." As years went up that simple 'poor Quality' law was refined with a 'high Quality' one by Einstein: "Gravity is a dent in the space-time continuum which things roll into." It's really the same law, just refined. And I'm sure as the years go by, Einstein's observation will be refined even further. So we're 'creating' new and better laws, which involve 'discovering' what reality is.>> Seems to me this presumes that an absolute truth (or absolute reality) exists, and people merely refine their understanding of it. I seriously question that presumption. (Seems I can't get beyond that.) I need to do some digging in the archives; I recall more in-depth debate on this point, but I don't remember where it ended. Thanks, I think I better appreciate the definitions of "created" and "discovered" laws. I agree that the Golden Rule forms a valid basis for 'good law' regarding individual freedoms; but a large portion of the body of law in the U.S. does not deal with individuals per se at all, but corporate bodies. I believe government should and must deal not only with relations between individuals but also with corporate bodies (businesses, churches, interest groups, countries etc.) and their relations with individuals and each other. I think the biggest problem with formulating 'good law' rests in regulating (i.e. protecting against abuse) those relations. It seems almost fashionable today to criticize government and law; I think the MOQ would say it is highly moral to improve these things. Of course, there are avenues by which individuals can make such changes; but oddly, many critics seem to reject the very possibility of change, putting a 'blanket curse on the whole scene', rather than make any attempt. I think the MOQ would call that immoral. Pirsig said in Zen that truths are never uttered by God outside of reality; people say things in particular times and places, and context is never irrelevant. I have not myself seen or been a victim of 'excess' infringement of personal freedom, therefore I have very few _broad_ criticisms of current U.S. government or law. I believe that unfairnesses in govt. and law tend most commonly to be due to lack of foresight. (Who can be criticized for failing to predict the future?) The minority of unfairnesses are probably due to the immorality of individuals in govt., rather than due to conspiracies of conservatives or liberals or subscribers to any other -ism, as many I know believe. Other views? -Scott MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
