as pirsig says the intellectual level is about human rights. human rights
are about egalitarianism and freedom. this egality and liberty (and
fraternity?; maybe the french were on to something hey?) are necessary for
the individual to develop intellectually and spiritually (in the moq these
are congruent processes).
simple really.
>From: 3dwavedave <dlt44@ipa.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Human rights
>Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:07:11 -0500
>
>Wim, DMB, all
>
>Maybe I would have been better understood had I said, " I'm leary of the
>proliferation of laws written in the 'rights' format."
>
>Wim said
> > In your 10/5 21:22 -0500 definition I am definitely an egalitarian:
> > 'an advocate or supporter of the belief that all people should have
>equal
> > political, social, and economic rights'.
>
>The definition was not "mine" per se but straight out of a dictionary.
>I am not sure what the relevance anyone being subscriber to
>this idea has to do with the MoQ, but I think wrapped up in the term
>"egalitarian" are a couple of meaningful questions which bears on this
>"human rights" thread:
>
>1) Does the MoQ advocate or support egalitarianism?
>2) How does this support, or lack of, tie into the idea of "human
>rights.?"
>
>My simple answer to number 1 is. NO.
>
>First "political, social, and economic rights" all pertain to the social
>level. So unlike the MoQ, an egalitarian seems to advocate or support a
>system which privileges social values over all others.
>
>Second is the term that is often breezed bye: "EQUAL", as in
>"EQUAL....fill in the blank.... RIGHTS". Determining "equal" requires a
>value judgement and under the MoQ we read:
>
>"The reason there is a difference between individidual evaluations of
>quality is that although Dynamic Quality is constant, these static
>patterns are different for everyone because each person has a different
>static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static
>patterns influence his final judgement. That is why their is some
>uniformity among individual value judgements but not complete
>uniformity." SODV pp 12-13
>
>"Some uniformity" is not "equal". "Equal" is "complete uniformity."
>
>"Rights" laws started with the theory "a government shall make no laws
>which limits xyz rights" and in time they evolve to "a government shall
>provide equal "completely uniform" xyz rights to all". In order to do
>this "value judgements" must be made "completely uniform" and the only
>practical way to assure this is, to as much as possible, eliminate
>"value judgements". This is done by prescribing what is "equal" prior to
>any appeal, such as in sentencing guidelines, hiring quotas, and other
>unthinking, uncaring, inflexible, bureaucratic rules and regulations.
>Again I suggest, particularly you DAVID, to get a copy of "Death of
>Common Sense" and as difficult as it will be try to see the practical
>consequences 'rights' law proliferation.
>
>Wim went on to say:
>
> > Rights are never absolute, because they are part of a set of rights.
>
>In general I agree, however using the MoQ level structure I think one
>can formulate a relationship of "rights" which suggests that some are
>more privileged, closer to "absolute", than others. You do this in
>effect by standing the MoQ on its head. For those of you familiar with
>Wilber and his use of the terms span and depth, I maintain that this
>interpretation of the MoQ
>supports the idea that the "absoluteness" of "rights" is more directly
>proportional to span, as opposed to depth. In other words those "rights"
>which
>are most absolute, most inviolate, are physical, inorganic, "rights" and
>they build up from there becoming less and less absolute along the way.
>
>Now some will object, claiming the MoQ's basic structure is based on the
>"right" of the higher, more evolved level to dominate the lower. What
>they have forgotten is these higher level "rights" are based in,
>supported by the stable underlying levels and are thus limited, or
>constrained by rules, laws, morals, of lower levels which they must
>respect sufficiently well if overall system stablility is to be maintained.
>
>For instance one constitution starts the list of "inalienable rights"
>with life. Under the MoQ the most "absolute" right under this category
>would be the inorganic, physical
>right to air, followed closely by water, physical space, maybe then up
>to the biological right to food etc. I can already hear the "Well,
>Duhhh's" in one quarter. But with care, one can pragmatically (ie what
>consequences does this proposed "right" have on the lower, more absolute
>"rights" have) work one's up through the levels to the intellectual. So
>while it maybe moral or right to allow an idea of a 'right' to destroy a
>society, if that idea destroys the social, or any other level it is not
>moral.
>
>For example in conjuction with the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, I
>previously posted a quote by an Israeli settler in which he claimed that
>it is his "birth-RIGHT" to live in
>Israel. ie BECAUSE HE WAS BORN A JEW, HE HAS THIS RIGHT. This right
>presumably extends to any person of the Jewish faith. In other words if
>I were to honestly convert to Judeaism I have the RIGHT to move to
>Israel, settle anywhere I might, and if necessary take up arms, and KILL
>anyone who would try to remove me, and be morally RIGHT in doing so.
>These are the "rights" of which I speak Is this not a rightful appeal of
>social based (religious) 'right' over say an Arab's physical and
>biological 'right' to a place to live and grow some olives, even if he
>was there prior to my arrival?. Are you both claiming I have this
>RIGHT? Could both of you please explain to me, preferably using direct
>quotes from either Lila or ZMM, how the MoQ definitively supports this
>claim?
>
>3WD
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
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 - 16:02:15 BST