From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Aug 12 2005 - 21:28:39 BST
On 12 Aug 2005 at 9:48, Sam Norton wrote:
> msh 8-11-05:
> A concession is a point scored. It's like Paul suggested, when I
> kick a goal I want to see the score change. : -) But I can live
> with your wording, above.
Well.... I think those images buy into ego-boosting (or diminishing), which
is social level behaviour - that's why I think it important to respect the
other person's point of view, even if you think it abominable. (Which
doesn't mean you can't take actions against the point of view, only that you
respect Gandhi's point that no human being is beyond reach, and worthy of
respect.)
msh 08-12-05:
Gee, didn't you note the smiley face, Mr. Serious? As for respecting
another's opinion, I do, as l long as he or she is willing and able
to defend their opinions using argument and evidence, and, here, the
principles of the Metaphysics of Quality. If they ignore argument
and evidence contradicting their opinions and nevertheless continue
posting their opinions to a MOQ-based philosophical forum (as opposed
to a faith-based religious or dogmatic political forum) then I see no
reason to treat them with respect. Using this list to post
unsupported political invective shows a disrespect for the philosophy
of Robert M. Pirsig, and there's nothing admirable about that.
> And, FTR, my use of the word "immediate" above
> follows directly from Pirsig's stand on capital punishment: a
> defenseless human being cannot be a threat, immediate or otherwise.
sam 08-12-05:
I think the language is a bit loose there - defenseless doesn't mean
incapable of harming - but I agree the point.
msh 08-12-05:
It's hard to see how someone incapable of defending himself could yet
be capable of violent offensive behavior. But since you agree...
>
> BTW, this might be a good place to see if we can agree that no
> innocent life is any more valuable than any other. I seem to recall,
> from the Understanding Power thread, that you conceded this point,
> though you weren't exactly comfortable with it. I thought that
> concession on your part was rather commendable, so I hope I'm not
> wrong.
sam 08-12-05:
I agree with it conceptually, where I'm uncomfortable with it is that, faced
with the choice between saving the life of someone I love and an anonymous
other person (where the value of the life is equal) I will always choose the
life of the person I love. What makes me uncomfortable is that I see no
intellectual level justification for that! (although there are obvious
'human' ones) But I can't imagine ever changing my mind on it.
msh 08-12-05:
You have to let your love expand to include all living beings, or at
least all human beings. Someone said something like this, long ago.
The name escapes me at the moment, Padre. :-)
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"People who have lost their hunger for justice are not ultimately
powerful. They are like sick people who have lost their appetite for what
is truly nourishing. Such sick people should not frighten or discourage
us. They should be prayed for along with the sick people who are in the
hospital."
--Cesar Chavez
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 12 2005 - 21:42:12 BST