Marco, Richard and Group.
This month's topic opened thus:
> "Is democracy the best (most moral) option for the q-social level?"
> Of course I'm not longing for totalitarianism, but I think our modern
> democracies are far from being perfect. Is the will of the majority
> enough to declare what's right and what's wrong? For example, has the
> majority of a democratic nation like the USA the right to require the
> capital punishment? And is it moral that the main gauge for a
> statesman to take a decision is the voice of the majority?
On 2 Oct, Marco wrote:
snip....
> Many years ago (I think I was 16) I had a discussion with a convinced
> Catholic. I was expressing my admiration for our democracies, and I
> told that it's good that the people can decide what's good and what's
> wrong. "What people?", he asked. "The majority of all us", was my
> answer. He ended with "So the majority decide what's good?".
Does the "old" Marco still think that majority rule defines
democracy"? I feel that when the North Korean majority hails Kim
Yong Il it is not the real thing. It is something about decisions
being made from a free stand-point and freedom requires
OBJECTIVITY which is Intellect's value per se. Democracy is of
Intellectual heritage and as such the best political instrument yet.
But is a modern state a pure social pattern? (as in the topic
formulation) It is deep down but heavily overlaid by Intellectual
values. "Democracy" is its name but as said not only as majority
rule, but with a host of tacit implications. Remove them and you
have a much more clean social pattern.
Yet, a tenet of the MOQ is that no level is independent of its base.
Intellect has social roots and will forever be plagued by it. An open
letter is intercepted (as in your example), but - notice - this is "no
good" and embarrassing if known, while in a more pure society like
Korea or Iran no letter would have been written.
Marco went on to raise the question about capital punishment
The fact that some American states apply it is not directly related -
or even counter - to democracy. The said practice was in use in
most European countries until just recently, it is the fair trial which
is the crucial point. And again Intellects social roots are plain to
see. Punishment is in itself a social invention, so to a true
intellectual no such thing should be really, and they to tone down
the penitentiariy aspect of it in favour of the reformatory one, but it
wont go away .....ever.
I could go on to tell about a child murder case in Norway that have
triggered demands for re-introduction of CP. It demonstrates how
the social cry for "lynch that bastard" prevails under Intellect.
RICHARD BUDD demonstrated how we have to "endure" the
democratic rights
> And when the court
> > released the rapist and murderer Carmen Miranda because nobody had
> > ever informed him he had the right to a lawyer, you can be sure the
> > majority would have loved to see the guy lynched. But the court let
> > him go, so the rest of us could be sure that if we were arrested, we
> > would know that we had "the right to remain silent and refuse to
> > answer questions... the right to lawyer...", etc. The ideal is that
> > the majority will prevails until it goes too far, and the system
> > kicks in to protect the rights and interests of minorities... it
> > doesn't always work. But it does sometimes.... that's the real
> > dream (right Marco?).
Capital punishment is not "lynching", but - admittedly - not exactly
Intellectual value either.
Richard went on...
> Robert M. Pirsig has identified several of our rights and freedoms
> as
> INTELLECTUAL Patterns of Value. He names the freedoms of speech and
> the press, assembly and travel, democracy, trial by jury and habeas
> corpus. He puts these rights under the umbrella which covers the
> highest of static patterns, second only DQ itself. They are not
> merely social patterns. They are not even "high Quality" social
> patterns. They're not even "the highest Quality" social patterns.
> They are Intellectual. In the MoQ, these rights are as real, as
> objective, and as moral as science, math, and truth. They are high
> Quality Intellectual patterns.
Hear, hear!
> I have heard several members of this forum object to Pirsig's
> identification of these Natural Rights as Intellectual patterns. Some
> have accused him of mistaking high Q-social patterns with the
> Intellectual. But I disagree. Freedoms of speech and the press are
> necessary for DQ, without this freedom to communicate ideas the
> Intellect would be stifled (if you doubt this, go ask Galileo how
> valuable science is without the freedom to communicate discoveries and
> theories) and DQ would hit a brick wall at the end of its static moral
> chain. Since the MoQ asserts that a lower level resists the control
> of the level directly superior, it would make no sense to call these
> rights "Social". Freedom of speech frees the Intellect that controls
> society.
Exactly!
> Notice how the Nazi's burned books... it wasn't because they had
> found a
> weaker social system or a social system of inferior Quality... on the
> contrary, they had found a STRONGER social system.
For a moment I did not get it, but then your point struck home.
EXCELLENT!
> One prized social
> order and strict sociological controls. And one of their first steps
> was to burn the books, that is... cut off the freedom of speech, and
> throw Intellect and the rights it guarantees off the top of the chain.
> They aren't the only ones either. Book burning, control of the media
> and censorship are often the most powerful tools of the
> totalitarian... now you know why, because the assertion of these
> controls signals the severance of the Intellectual from its rightful
> place. Enough for now, It's all Good, Rick
Yes, this was good Rick!
Bodvar
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:27 BST