From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 01:57:38 BST
Hi Platt,
P
> As I said, you might want to point out where Pirsig said that a right to
> privacy is an intellectual value. Since you didn't, I presume you can't.
R
Well, as far as I know, Robert M. Pirsig has never written the words
"privacy is an intellectual value". But he did say...
PIRSIG (LILA p430)
Dhyana was what it was what this boat was all about. It's what he bought it
for, a place to be alone and quiet and inconspicuous and able to settle down
into himself and be what he really was and not what he was thought to be or
supposed to be.... The most moral activity of all is the creation of space
for life to move onward."
R
Catch that? Creating the kind of privacy that men need to think, the kind
Phaedrus found on his boat (and presumably once his motorcycle) is THE MOST
MORAL ACTIVITY OF ALL. Moreover, when Lila seeks privacy to sort out the
problems of her life Phaedrus comments on the same page that "...the culture
has a moral obligation not to bother her." And Lila's battle is everybody's
battle, you know Platt?
P
I don't see where your interpretation of what rights are and are not
> enumerated in the Constitution is relevant to the question of intellectual
> values as enumerated by Pirsig.
R
You seemed to think it was relevant enough to add to the end of your own
paragraph Platt (remember, you wrote "...just as the Court found a right to
sodomy in the Constitution that isn't there."). If was relevant for you, it
was relevant for me.
P
Incidentally, you added something to the
> 10th Amendment by saying rights belong to the people "as individuals." Is
> that addition the Court's interpretation of "people," or yours?
R
It's the only possible interpretation that makes sense. If "the people" is
read to mean 'the state' than the amendment is pointlessly redundant (naming
the same group twice under two different names for no reason at all). If
"the people" is read to mean 'the federal government' than the amendment is
nonsensical (stating that any rights not expressly reserved to the federal
government are reserved to the states or the federal government). Equating
"the people" with individual citizens is the only possible logical
interpretation of the language. Unless you care to offer another
alternative....
> P
> > > Pirsig did write this:
> > >
> > > "I personally am pro-choice, but I understand the moral integrity of
> > > those who are not. It is a matter for society through its mechanisms
of
> > > politics to decide and keep deciding as it evolves toward a better
> > > world." (Lila's Child, Note 92.) Pirsig's "codes" appear to be much
more
> > > tolerant than yours. Moreover, you will notice that he comes down on
the
> > > side of the "mechanisms of politics," i.e. legislatures, to decide
such
> > > moral questions, not the courts which are supposed to be above
politics.
> > > This is also my position.
>
> > R
> > Now you're the one putting words in the man's mouth Platt, "mechanisms
of
> > politics" does not mean "legislatures". Pirsig is a highly educated
man,
> > and the author/editor of a professional level legal-textbook, if he
meant
> > the "legislatures" should decide, he would have said it. But he didn't
> > (because if he had it would have been akin to endorsing a dictatorship
of
> > legislatures). He meant what he wrote. The mechanisms of politics
include
> > legislatures, but they also include courts, executives, voters,
> > administrative agencies, private litigants, special interest
groups...etc.
> > "Politics" is the sum of that world, not any one part.
P
> Neither does "mechanisms of politics" mean "Supreme Court."
R
Right. As I said, it means all of those things put together (including the
legislature and the Supreme Court).
P
I could use
> your argument to claim that if he meant Supreme Court he would have said
> it.
R
No you can't because I didn't say he meant "the Supreme Court" I said he
meant ALL the mechanisms of politics (which is what he wrote) you were the
one trying whittle it down to merely "the legislature".
P
Remember that when he wrote the passage he knew full well that the
> Court had already decided the abortion question.
R
That right Platt, and he used THAT ISSUE to make his point about how 'the
mechanisms of politics' should decide such questions. A very strange
example for him to pick if he thought that the Supreme Court wasn't a
mechanism of politics... don't you think?
P
But in his mind, that's
> not the last word. He wrote that societies should "keep deciding." I
> agree.
R
I agree too. And the Court is a part of our society that has a voice in the
conversation just like every other mechanism of politics.
take care
rick
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 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 01:56:17 BST