Christoph Reuss wrote:
>
> Ed Goertzen quoted Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia (which keyword?):
> > "...If the mass of the population
> > governed and they were virtuous, it was called a timocracy. (The Greek
> > timios means "worthy.") But if the many were not virtuous, it was called a
> > democracy. The Greeks generally had a very low opinion of democracy,
> > equating it with mob rule".
>
> Democracy as it is practiced today should rather be called "Mediacracy"
> (oops, almost said "Mediocracy"..) -- the rule of the media: Even in a
> 'direct' democracy, the voters' decisions are based on information they
> receive from the media, so in effect, the media are ruling by 'biasing'(*)
> this information. And who 'owns' the large media...? (-->Oligarchy)
[snip]
Yes, this gets back to Freud in the best sense: Making the
unconscious conscious, so that we can assume more *real*
control over the course of our lives rather than imagining
that just because we are "free to choose", that we are
really free (self-accountable, etc.).
To repeat myself, Edward Hall's _The Silent Language_ and
Resnais' film "Mon Oncle d'Amerique" are both excellent here.
The carrot beats the stick every time. Repression always
causes more problems than selective-permission. Prudes
may enjoy the results of repression. But a gung-ho
people all busting their butts to win the various
*competitions* in society get more gratitifications
makes for a higher rate of growth of the GNP -- for,
while in any competition some individuals win and some
individuals lose, the competitive apparatus's strength
is increased by the efforts of all (presuming, of course,
that the people pursue "*free market* competition",
not "*wild west* market competition"!).
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
