[MD] Reductionism

[blue-jay maple]

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<libertytree at mail.com> 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