Hi Sam:
I join Bo in praise of your analysis of the MOQ with regards to the
Middle East and politics in general. Thanks for putting in the time and
effort such a thoughtful interpretation obviously required, and for
sharing your conclusions with us.
One question that still sort of hangs out there is about human rights.
You wrote:
> 3. Acceptance of MoQ diminishes attachment to social level.
> If you accept the foregoing in broad terms, and also buy into the MoQ, then
> it seems to me that your attachment to the less 'intellectual' forms of
> nationalism must decline (at least in reasoned terms). If you see that
> there is a higher value than the nation, the doctrine of human rights, then
> you will accept that there are times when it is necessary to go against
> your own nation in pursuit of that higher value. It also means that you
> need to work to reconstruct your own nation so that it is geared around
> support of those rights, that it is criticised when it breaches those
> rights, but also that it is defended from other nations that may be less
> likely to respect those rights themselves. (Half a loaf is better than no
> bread).
The question is, what do you mean by "the doctrine of human rights?"
You'll recall Pirsig's criticism of 60's intellectuals:
"What passed for morality within this crowd was a kind of vague,
amorphous soup of sentiments known as "human rights." You were
also supposed to be "reasonable." What these terms really meant was
never spelled out in any way that Phaedrus had ever heard. You were
just supposed to cheer for them."
He then went on to give the MOQ version of human rights:
"This soup of sentiments about logically nonexistent entities can be
straightened out by the Metaphysics of Quality. It says that what is
meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code of intellect-vs. -
society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social control. Freedom
of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus;
government by consent-these "human rights" are all intellect-vs.-
society issues. According to the Metaphysics of Quality these "human
rights" have not just a sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical
basis."
Do you think Pirsig's list of rights is complete? Or are there more that
you would include in the doctrine? For example, Article 25, Section (1)
of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health
and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right
to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances
beyond his control."
Does this strike you as a right of intellectual to be free of social control?
Or is this "right" strictly social level in its purpose and intent, requiring
forced redistribution of wealth? What is the proper role of private
property in a doctrine of human rights?
Would appreciate your thoughts on this subject as it is key to many
political issues. Thanks.
Platt
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 - 16:02:14 BST