COMMENTS ON Marco and Roger on "What is Human Rights?"
MARCO said:
So, going back to the "Human Rights" thread, Roger, when you write:
> Pirsig explains human rights as "tweeners" between the intellectual and
> social. I would label such modern rights as "free speech" as
> intellectually-influenced social patterns. They concern social contracts
of
> how people are treated and allowed to interact -- a classic example of a
> social pattern -- albeit an intellectually influenced one
I answer that the "Human rights" you are talking about are "entities". Take
for example the freedom of speech. It's obvious it's social, and it's also
obvious it's intellectual. When this right is discussed as fundamental basis
for the intellectual diffusion of ideas, it's interacting with an
intellectual environment; when it's applied during a trial, it's interacting
with a social environment.I call "patterns" the models used to explain those
interactions.
Of course, you have noticed that I often refer to these entities as being
intellectual, or social, or whatever else. Doing it, I want to evidence the
possible environmental interaction which is IMO more important. Of course the
freedom of speech is social and intellectual, but IMO its intellectual aspect
has more relevance than any other aspect.
ROG said:
I characterize it as a social condition which contributes to and is affected
by the intellectual level. Pirsig always refers to it as between the levels.
DANILA:
I don't agree with Pirsig that it's "between the levels." I'd like to
elaborate: If, for the moment, we agree to see the MOQ as DESCRIPTIVE
(rather than PRESCRIPTIVE) only, "human rights" is either a) an abstract
noun that refers to the degree to which a society (or a part thereof) is
being ruled by an Intellectual pattern that we call "basic human rights" or
b) the Intellectual pattern itself or c) the social condition where an
Intellectual idea exists that some people use to change Social value patterns.
If we try to use the MOQ PRESCRIPTIVELY to understand or support human
rights, then we run into the well-known problems of judging Social values
against Intellectual values.
I really think that a lot of our confusion on this list would be cleared up
if we specified whether we are discussing DESCRIPTIVE or PRESCRIPTIVE
applications of the MOQ. I've been wading through a week's worth of
postings and this confusion keeps coming up.
In addition, I think it's really important in discussion to differentiate
between the entity (society, intellect, etc.) and the value patterns it
(can) create. Marco is coming from this viewpoint very clearly, but some of
the other posters don't. Some graphic marker is needed, maybe all CAPITALS
for the value pattern and small letters for the entity?
Also, when Pirsig says that "value patterns are all that exist" I think he
means that whenever there is a perceiver and a perceived, the perceiver
"values" the perceived. The reason for the question "If a tree falls in a
forest and no one hears it, is there a sound?" is that there is no
perceiver, and thus no value. The only way to answer the question is to
assume a perceiver (God, the tree itself, animals, etc.). Every second of
my life I perceive, and I am enmeshed in the patterns of the four-levels
that result from my valuing. Same for every other thing in the universe.
But human rights is two words, as I said above, that refers to several
different kinds of relationships, depending upon who is using it and for
what purpose. I think saying that "it's between the levels" is an
oversimplification that perhaps is using a PRESCRIPTIVE view of MOQ only.
Sincerely,
Danila
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST