[MD] Reductionism

[Ian Glendinning]

Jeez - as I say, life's too short.
Ian

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:21 PM, blue-jay maple<libertytree at mail.com> 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<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
>
> 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/
>