Surveyors,
GREAT POST Richard.
Thank You for this.
Also thanks to Bo and Marco.
I read the ' New York Song ' of Big P and fell over the following. ( I did
not hurt myself )
In chap. 17 (on page 224 bantam ed. 1991) Mr. Pirsig writes.
" When they call it freedom, that's not right. ' Freedom' doesn't mean
anything. Freedom's just an escape from somenthing negative. The real reason
it's so hallowed is that when people talk about it they mean Dynamic
Quality.
That's what neither the the socialists nor the capitalists ever got figured
out. From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism.
It's a higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not
just a society that is guided by mindless traditions. That's what gives
socialism its drive. But what the socialists left out and what has all but
killed their whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite
Dynamic Quality.
You go to any socialist city and it's always a dull place because there's
little Dynamic Quality."
What does Mr. Pirsig mean by ' an absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic
Quality' ?
Could there be an intellectually guided society with an inherent concept of
indefinite Dynamic Quality ?
Work in progress.... .
Andreas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_focus@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_focus@venus.co.uk] On
Behalf Of Marco Bonarelli
Sent: Donnerstag, 5. Oktober 2000 20:40
To: 'moq_focus@moq.org'
Subject: MF Re: Dreamocracy
Rick, Bo, Andreas and all,
thanks for your prompt messages.
marted 3 ottobre 2000 3.18
Rick wrote:
> In a pure democracy, the majority does
> decide what is good...
[...]
> The United States is NOT a pure
> democracy... it's not even close.
Then a very interesting description of the work of James Madison follows .
Thanks for it.
> His study taught him one thing
> above and beyond all else, pure
> democracy doesn't work.
[...]
> The question had been
> anciently considered by
> Aristotle who felt that next to
> Monarchy, Democracy
> was the lowest form of government.
> Aristotle felt that the
> only thing that
> was almost as dumb as having
> one man run everything was to
> have everyone run
> everything (Aristotle, by the way,
> believed in an Aristocracy, so much so,
> he named it after himself--- he
> felt that government should
> be run by the
> smartest citizens, which... when you
> think about it, isn't
> such a bad idea).
A great idea, but said so it doesn't mean a lot. It's like to say that I do
prefer an Aristogastronomy, that is, eat in the best restaurants. It's just
a good way to shift the point to "and who decides who are the "Aristoi"?"
> Madison wrote his reply to these
> concerns in a paper called
> "the Virginia Plan"
[...]
> The answer was a Representative
> democracy.
Actually our representative democracies are in some way aristocracies. The
majority decides who is aristos (excellent). After a certain number of
years, the majority can change the decision.
Then you go on with excellent examples of how the democracy works. We can
have good things and mistakes, but all based on the fundamental principle of
the human rights.
> 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?).
My call to a dreamocracy was not against democracy. I just was trying to
express the point that democracy has been created as mean to realize the
huge dream of a better world, in order to assure the human rights. In some
way, the dream is the dynamic input, while democracy is the static
application.
I just see the risk that the undoubtable dynamic performance of our
democracies could be not infinite, as many social forces (market, in primis)
sometimes seem to be able to reconquer the center of the ring. The case I
illustrated was about how a pure q-intellectual discussion (is the capital
punishment moral in a democracy? is it compatible with the human rights?) is
not democratically easy to be faced, as it is conditioned by the huge
presence of the market. When it is impossible to reach the majority with an
idea, because of its low grade of popularity, there are few chances to
change the public opinion, so democracy loses its dynamic potentiality. Also
the statesmen (aristoi?) are too afraid to lose their popularity, so they
are slaves of the popularity exactly like the media.
In such a situation, only an elite can be the bearer of dynamic forces.
That's why I ask for dreamers. Not to destroy democracy, rather to expand
it.
I don't deny that this democracy is the best form of society we ever had, I
just doubt it's the best possible. However, in order to remain "the best",
it must remain dynamic.
> So where does the MoQ come in???
etc.. etc...
I completely agree with your analysis: human rights are intellectual
patterns. Or rather, the first intellectual pattern is that "there are human
rights". But IMO the nature of those rights has to progress. For example, at
the times of the Bill of Rights, the pollution problem was not like today,
so I think the "Right to live in a non-polluted world" should be added in
our constitutions, while for what I know it's simply matter of ordinary
laws.
So I agree with you about the Nazis, they were pursuing a strong social
purpose, but I insist on the risk of the possible decadence of democracies,
under the hits of the currently strongest social value: the market.
mercoled 4 ottobre 2000 18.56
Bo wrote:
> 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.
You have a point. Majority is not enough. Every dictator has the support of
the population. But, as I tried to explain, I fear the end of the propulsive
force of a democracy when it's blinded by q-social values like money or
popularity.
> 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.
>
The SOLAQI's prophet strikes again... :-). Objectivity is a SOMish value,
that is, an important intellectual value, not the only possible... but this
is an old story. However, it's the best instrument as long as the freedom of
opinion is kept safe from the q-social forces. There's no evidence of this
safeness, so let me have doubts. The limit of objectivity comes out here:
while it has been able to beat the q-social forces of totalitarianism, it
seems to be unable to override the q-social forces of the market.
> "Democracy" is its name but
> as said not only as majority
> rule, but with a host of tacit
> implications.
These "implications" are, as said, the principle of the existence of human
rights.
> 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.
Agree about (Northern) Korea. But you seem to surrender to the idea that the
Intellect (which can be in your convictions only pure objectivity), can't do
a lot more against society. This is the worst mistake coming from your
SOLAQI. In fact, if the intellect is objectivity, and the objectivity is not
able to face the q-social forces, the conclusion is that the q-social forces
can't be won. And this is not moral, according to the MOQ. At the contrary,
if you give to the Q-intellect the chance to be more inclusive, the Q-idea
can be within the Q-intellectual level, so it is possible for the MOQ to
find a better solution against the q-social forces. I could not bear a
philosophy unable to fight the social level.
>
> 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.
It depends on what you mean by "democracy". If democracy is an intellectual
way to ensure the human rights, the discussion about the capital punishment
is matter of democracy.
Furthermore, dreamocracy is IMO about the creation of new human rights.
> The said practice was in use in
> most European countries until just
> recently,
:-(
> it is the fair
> trial which is the crucial point.
Not at all! The detractors of capital punishment are against it,
independently by the guiltiness. You can agree or not, but the right to
discuss such delicate arguments like this, seems to be not completely
granted. That's why the people's agreement can't be enough in order to help
the cultural evolution.
mercoled 4 ottobre 2000 19.29
Andreas wrote:
> ...he wished me a good
> holiday (which is today, we celebrate
> the reunification of
> east and west
> germany)
a great day, also for all Europe and the world.
>
> Helmut Kohl was the most influential
> statesman of the last twenty years.
> Lately he has been dishonoured,
> even by his own party, the CDU. There is a
> strong evidence that he evased taxes
> and has been bribed by
> exporters of
> military equipment.
As you probably know, here we had the same situation in the early 90s. Our
Kohl was Craxi. So I can tell you what is going to happen there....
> Now it is forgotten. The CDU is
>gaining ground again, which
> has been heavily
> catalysed by the raise of the petrol prise,
> due to tax increase by the
> actual government. If the next election
> would be now the CDU
> might win and
> regain government.
>
Exactly.
> Leo Kirch, a close friend of Kohl,
> and the middle european equivalent
> to Rupert Murdoch, was a pioneer in
> introducing privately owned TV and enforced the
> desensibilisation of the
> eyes and ears of the german public.
> The program slip is: "
> Make them sleep -
> make them look away - make them
> forget " - which is a
> twentieth century
> variation of ' divide and reign '.
>
And we have also the equivalent of Kirch. Berlusconi was a close friend of
Craxi. Just like Kirch, he owns private televisions and is bringing on the
same program. Furthermore he is now the leader of the opposition and is
going to be the new premier. A perfect local example of the power of the
q-social forces of the market.
> Seen in this light the MOQ is THE
> antidote and dangerous to
> the profiteurs
> from public sleep. Mr. Pirsig says:
> ' Wake up - make up Your
> own mind - trust Your own senses ' and
> he reintroduces values, declared irrelevant or
> hollowed out to puppets without any
> content. An underlying message of both
> Zen and Lila is the presentation of value
> experience by reducing, simplifying and clearing.
> Mr. Pirsigs program is: ' Be here now - start with
> opening up to the sensual
> experience of values embedded in the
> moral hierarchy of the universe'.
> This is basic and tight - well I do not
> find the real words
> but You know
> what I mean.
>
Right Andreas. The MOQ has a lot to say. Reintroducing value to the center
of the intellectual arena, reducing the influence of the objectivity: this
is the MOQ's suggestion. This is the way to reintroduce dreams as creative
force.
tks
Marco
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
------- 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