On 17 Oct 2000, at 9:46, Jonathan B. Marder wrote: > BODVAR > > Democracy is an Intellectual pattern we all agree on > I'm not sure about that (despite Pirsig). Historically, features of > democracy like the England's Magna Carta and Iceland's parliament > appeared well before either of these countries were exposed to the > Intellectual patterns derived from Greek (Socratic) philosophy - that > only penetrated the West during the Renaissance. Interesting point Jonathan. Firstly I agree that Greek philosophy was the turn of the tide when Intellectual values started to influence that culture (if it just as well may be seen as the rise of SOM ...!!!) and that it hibernated during the Middle Age to spring to life at the Renaissance. And the expression "influence" reflects my view of how the democracy-an-intellctual-or-a-social-pattern question must be dealt with. All (human?) co-habitats are at their root Q-Social value manifest, but a clan or tribe is much more basic than a country which is so complex that it can "carry" intellectual values. More of this below. You are right about Magna Carta and the Icelandic law and parliamentary system too, but even if they weren't directly exposed to Greek influence the social dynamism of the age had reached a plateau where the individual stood up against the value of "society". And that this spread as if by magic. This can be debated. If it was "in the air" why didn't the tribes of inner New Guinea or upper Amazonas develop humanism and parliament? To which I think the answer is that lack of social sophistication can't support the Intellectual level, in the same way that a simple organism can't support social values. > I consider that the institutions of democracy are SOCIAL patterns. Social in the sense that they dominate the workings of modern countries, but the value that the democratic institutions pursue are always to protect the individual against the arbitrariness of social value that don't care about human rights, rather reject the one who doesn't join "our cause". > However, I agree with everyone else in this thread that democracy has > been very successuful in producing societies that are both stable and > adaptable to change - a good mix of dynamism and static latching. IMO > this is because democracy gives a degree of acceptance to minority > views, and even reinforces them in institutions like a parliamentary > opposition (which may even include a state-funded shadow cabinet). We > value opposing opinions and the dialogue between them so much that > this is the basis of our legal system. Even though democracy largely > accepts the majority view, we value minority opinions not because we > think that they are right, but we have to consider the possibility > that the majority might be wrong. Yes, but even (a) democracy - if threatened - must lapse back to the social latch, and one of the greatest achievements of the MOQ is to explain the enigma of "evil"; why killing and destruction (war) can become a value. Of course not hailed as such from the Intellectual level (democracy) but the duty (society) if my country is attacked. > The whole of nature works like this. The genetic code is "degenerate" > (i.e. several alternative 3-base codons can all code for the same > amino acid). Mutations are allowed and tolerated as much as possible - > even encouraged to perpetuate though "recessive" genes. Allowed, yes, > but always kept in check. IMO the reason this works (for nature and > society) is as follows: > When you are driving along the main road and suddenly find it > bocked, > it's nice to know that there is a side road to go back to. Interesting ....and in agreement with the MOQ ..at all levels. Thanks for reading. Bodvar ------- End of forwarded message ------- MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
