Dear Platt,
==> I had written:
Why not "Human Rights" ?
According to Pirsig, Intellectual level took full prominence during the XXth
century, when the individual rights started becoming effective.
Intellectuals had actually designed previously human rights just to subtract
their individual freedom (of knowledge, expression, movement, and so on...)
from the rule of social laws. I guess they were tired to get the treatment
of Socrates, Jesus, Galileo and so on.. - all killed or reduced to silence
after legal trials.
Like to say: human rights are the set of laws the intellectual patterns have
invented to keep at bay social patterns. And actually modern social laws
should not be allowed to override human rights.
==> Platt replied:
By the way, your candidate for the law of the fourth level was "human
rights." How do your "human rights" differ from Pirsig's "amorphous
soup of sentiments?" In other words, what do you have in mind
specifically?
==> I replied to Platt:
Platt asked what I'm meaning when I talk of Human Rights. You see, Platt,
I'm just referring to that Pirsig's statement. Surely I'm not a rational
intellectual of the 50's believing that human rights are subjective and
therefore non-existing. Maybe you Platt, saying they are a "sentimental
soup" are in the same group with those loser scientist intellectuals the MOQ
claims are wrong. They believe that human rights are a sentimental soup. The
MOQ says exactly the opposite.
==> Platt again:
> No, they don't say human rights are a sentimental soup. Those 50's
> and 60's intellectuals were all cheering for human rights, except they
> never defined what those rights were in rational terms. They couldn't
> because their rational terms, using SOM premises, said that rights
> were subjective, i.e., based on feelings.
Marco:
Well, I think you were wrong asking how do my "human rights" differ from
Pirsig's "amorphous soup of sentiments", as I clearly stated since the
beginning that I was referring to Pirsig statement. At the time of writing,
I hadn't Lila with me, so I could not quote the exact words.
Then, I was wrong believing you were saying that the MOQ states that human
rights are a sentimental soup. Exactly the MOQ states that in a
Subject-Object Metaphysics, human rights are a sentimental soup 'cause it
has no provisions for morals. As David B. points out, Pirsig is attacking
SOM; not human rights; not liberal intellectuals; not social Victorians....
I hope we are in agreement.
Platt:
> Note: What "human rights" meant was never spelled out in any way."
> Pirsig took it upon himself to spell out what human rights means, NOT
> based on "sentiments" such as hatred of cops, but on the rational
> structure of MOQ.
>
> So my question to you was simply to spell out, like Pirsig did, what you
> mean by "human rights." I take it your answer to be the same as
> Pirsig's since you enumerated no other rights than Pirsig listed, namely
> freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, of travel, trial by jury, habeas
corpus,
> government by consent. Further, you claim that your selection of human
> rights is not based on "subjective" considerations, leaving me to
> wonder exactly what your selection is based on since further on in your
> post you object to the rational approach Pirsig takes.
Marco:
Tell me, where do I object the rational approach of Pirsig? I just object
rationality as a weapon for individuals to gain freedom from society. You
can be perfectly rational while socially focused.
I was criticizing your following suggestion:
Platt:
I vote for the laws of "logical consistency." Or "math and logic." [...]
Logic and math, incapable of being cowered or converted
by group demands, stand as beacons of individual freedom against the
howling mob.
Marco:
and my criticism still stands. For these reasons:
a ) the answer to the Dave's question ("Why did Pirsig not tie some name
like these to this level? Or did he somewhere and I miss it? But if he
didn't what are some of the possibilities? The best candidate?" ) was Human
Rights. I could not quote the exact passage, but I was hoping someone else
could, after my suggestion.
b ) Your suggested math and logic have IMO very little to deal with
individual freedom. In facts, if it's true that society can't change
mathematical truth, it is clearly impossible also for an individual. And I
really think I can be perfectly free even without mathematics.
c ) And math can be ... pragmatically useful also at the social level. My
point is that math, logic, truth, rationality are not weapons that liberate
the individual from society ***a n d t h i s w a s t h e q u e s t
i o n ***; at the contrary my point is that they have to be liberated from
the social control.
d) Moreover, maybe it wasn't your intention, but IMO suggesting that math
and logic can't be converted by group demands *seems* very akin to the
arguments of SOM: objectivity is independent from any social demand, while
at the contrary Pirsig claims that a science independent from society is
absurd.
still puzzled,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:51 BST