Hi Sam, Elliot, Erin, Scott, Wim, John B., Platt, All:
Platt said...
Scott sees little of value in Erin's position. For him, "collective behavior
is dangerous precisely because it expresses the interest, quality,
thinking, etc. of only some members of the collective," leaving the rights
of the individual/intellectual "squashed."
DMB says...
It looks like Scott has used the word "collective" where he really means to
say "authoritarian" or "totalitarian", which is an ideology that no one here
has ever advocated - at least as far as I know. (Welcome to the cult, Scott.
Resistance is futile. You WILL be assimilated. - Just kidding.) Ken Wilber
points out, I think quite rightly, that everthing is both an individual
entity AND is part of a larger system or collective. Letters make words,
words make sentences, sentences make paragraphs, English is part of the
Indo-European family of languages, etc. I'm an individual but belong to any
number of larger systems; family, neighborhood, city, state, nation, the
human species, etc. My body has organs, that are made of cells, that are
made of molecules, that are made of atoms, that are made of... You get the
idea. I would challenge you to think of something that is not BOTH an
individual and part of a larger collective. Its just a basic feature of
reality. Even the MOQ itself is such. From page 299 "The MOQ resolves the
relationship between intellect and society, subject and object, mind and
matter, by embedding all of them in a larger system of understanding." Which
brings us to the topic, human rights...
Platt re-asked...
My original question was whether the list of rights
enumerated by Pirsig was complete. So far, that question hasn't been
answered, at least directly. His list, you'll recall, is based on "the moral
right of intellect to be free of social control." The list was:
.freedom of speech
.freedom of assembly
.freedom of travel
.trial by jury
.habeas corpus
.government by consent
DMB says...
I don't think the author meant for this list to be complete. These are just
the best examples because almost every thinking person understands and
accepts their value. As you know, he's talking about the relationship
between society and intellect and these rights are aimed at protecting
intellectual freedom. Its about protecting those contrarians, because they
are the most likely to create change and move the evolutionary process
forward. Its obvious, no?
Platt said...
For both Pirsig and Eisenhower there's no mention under the rubric of
human rights of a right to shelter, food, clothing, medical care, or old
age security. Was it immoral for Pirsig and Eisenhower to omit these
things? What about the right of self-defense? Of property? Of a job?
DMB says...
Eisenhower? Hmmm. What an odd choice. But the question is good. As I
understand it, these are not rights in the same sense. They represent social
values. Food, shelter and medicine is about the relationship between society
and biology rather than society and intellect. But it sure seems that a
society that provides these things is more moral than one that doesn't. Its
just decent. In fact its one of the things that define social values as
opposed to the law of the jungle.
Self defense? Its immoral to stand by and allow anyone to be murdered,
especially if its you that's being murdered. Its not a right, its a duty and
a moral obligation. Property? Nine tenths of the law and all that, but
again, its not a right in the same sense. Its a basic social values. Thou
shalt not steal, and all that. Very old stuff. The right to a job? I keep
trying to convince my employer that I have a right to host my own talk show,
but he's not buying it. Just kidding.
Here's a thought. If the rights that Pirsig lists are all designed to
preserve the freedom of the intellect from social control, what does that
tell us about our laws against peyote and such? Are these substances not
used to expand consciousness? Aren't those anti-drug laws contrary to the
very idea of intellectual freedom?
Platt said...
Maybe if we identify the rights we, as individuals, would be willing to
fight and die for, it would be a start.
DMB...
I think you're asking about our level of commitment to the rights we say we
believe in, which is a good question, but law enforcement is a role for cops
and armies and such. Its a collective social level thing and always has
been. To fight and die as an individual, even if the cause is noble, is to
abandon civilization and society. In which case, we might as well crawl back
into the caves and start sharpening sticks.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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