Hi BO, Jonathan , 3wDave, all
JONATHAN:
> Rog-[rules of logic]
> Jonathan- [the laws of laws]
> Platt-[logical consistency or math and logic
> 3WD- [the philosopy of laws]
The above group are all basically saying that intellect=metaphysics
(physical/structural philosophy).
Marco led the "moral revolt"
> Marco-[Human Rights]
> Wim-[Ethics]-"which underpins human rights and duties"
and later
> Horse [the right to life]
The position here seems to be intellect=moral philosophy.
The synthesis of these two rather different approaches is simply:
INTELLECT=PHILOSOPHY,
MARCO:
So, Jonathan I'm leader of a moral revolution? I'm scared. These leaders
usually don't die old in their bed. And Bo's post scares me even more.
Jokes aside, I'm perfectly fine with INTELLECT=PHILOSOPHY. Hope you agree
that freedom of philosophizing can produce a better philosophy. Like to
say, a free intellect works better than a slave one. It is obvious, I know,
but I think useful, too.
But this is not the problem. Evidently I've not been clear, and it could
well be my fault.
I have never said that intellect=human rights. I've just said that human
rights protect intellect from social influence. No more, no less. Still, I
find myself in the other's messages saying that. Did I write Italian? No, so
it must be my defective English...
Dave, for example:
3wDAVE:
PS: Marco- While I find what you have posted in the "human rights" vein
good, I'm leary of limiting the laws of the intellect exclusively to 'human
rights'. It's kind of like my disagreement with Bo. While I will admit that,
'human rights" just like the subject/object divide was/is a defining moment
and powerful force in the development of the intellectual level, it's just
that neither is expansive nor inclusive enough to cover all the values of
whole level now, let alone future evolutions.
And, Bo, even worse:
BO:
Next, let me say that Marco's post impressed me greatly, and that I have
nothing against his "human rights" as a definition of intellect - nor any
other of its latter day expressions, but these are so ridiculously recent.
MARCO:
My friends, it is me having a lot to say against this bizarre equation
"human rights as a definition of intellect". Where does it come from?
Evidently I write Chinese, not English, nor Italian.
How many times will have to repeat that I've just offered the same exact
"law" Pirsig suggests FEW PAGES LATER? He is wrong? Let's discuss, I don't
think so.
Examples??? Biology, why not. Biology *is not* the law of jungle. Actually,
I'm not used to make sex in the jungle. Someone maybe out there? Let me
know. At the birth of biology there was no jungle at all, guys! The law of
jungle does not define biology. The law of jungle *consolidates* biology.
Society? Ok let's take a look on it. Society *is not* the Law. Law does
not define society. The Law consolidates society. Early families were
perfectly social with no need of Laws.
So, Intellect? As well, human rights consolidate intellect, they don't
create nor define it.
If you attack my point (that is not mine, by the way, it's firstly
Pirsig's), please attack first the matching points Pirsig offers about the
other levels, then, as you have gone so far, write your own metaphysics. And
let me know. Could be even better than the MOQ.
RIDICOUSLY RECENT, Bo? Yes, problems? At the birth of intellect there were
not human rights. Is it strange? Isn't it even more recent the definitive
prominence of intellect over society, according to Pirsig? Am I the only one
around seeing a relationship between the development of human rights and the
impressive intellectual developments of last century? Hey, no cause-effect.
No definitions here. I'm offering just an interesting relationship.
And Bo, many thanks for the example about New Guinea. Very interesting, but,
sorry, it is completely irrelevant to my point. They are totally social, and
therefore not rational. And so? Is it strange? hmmm let's talk of intellect,
please. Socrates, on the other hand, was very rational and his society
killed him for that. Why? Don't know, but no human right was there to
protect him.
And, in the end, the coup de teatre...
BO
Finally I am as impressed by - and in agreement with - David B's
post and think he is the one to understand this impossible
conclusion of Marco's:
> > On the other hand, it seems to
> > me that while rationality is of great help in controlling
> > inorganic and biological patterns, it's not as well useful to use
> > rationality to "triumph over society". .
It is the ONLY means to "triumph over society"
MARCO:
Great. The ONLY mean. And David B also is the only one understanding my
impossible conclusion. Could be, he will let me know. Up to now, he has
apparently kept safe this point for himself. That solipsist!
Evidences please? About impossible conclusions you could be my master. Did
Socrates triumph over Athens? Did Galileo triumph over Rome?
And can you *rationally* understand a culture, *mathematically* predict the
behavior of a people, *rationally* convince them to eventually change their
behavior? Good luck. Communists were convinced of that. I feel perfectly
fine if only my society lets me live in peace.
[that's incredible, I'm playing the role of the libertarian anticommunist.
Platt, is it a nightmare? What's happening?]
scared,
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