Democracy and postmodernism

[longears]

How do you MEASURE one's degree of consciousness?  There's got to be a standard in order to implement this little paradise of yours, so what is it?  Would you have a quiestionnaire to fill out?  What?

I don't get it-- I've noticed on the one hand you go on (elsewhere) about the exploitation of people in the third world (with which I wholeheartedly agree) but then you've got this vendetta against The Horde^TM.  You don't seem to have a very high estimate of human beings-- they are just cattle to you.  You can't have it both ways.

It looks to me as if you do get it.  Sean imagines that he's "enlightened" when, in fact, he's far less aware than the masses he sneers at.  It takes a very special kind of unconsciousness for someone like Sean to lecture sanctimoniously about third world exploitation while simultaneously boasting about his personal exploitation of third world girls as a "sex tourist."   

[Florestan]

Excellent points, Ephemerid! I only hope Sean finds his Sonia as soon as possible.

Hey, Sean! I'm still waiting for some examples of good dictators...

[Sean]

Florestan, well I know of one, the great Indian leader Ashoka (304-232BC): killed a lot of people to begin with to get order then ruled with supreme wisdom.

...the history of the world there have been thousands of kings and emperors who called themselves 'their highnesses,' 'their majesties,' and 'their exalted majesties' and so on. They shone for a brief moment, and as quickly disappeared. But Ashoka shines and shines brightly like a bright star, even unto this day.

& Raskolnikov obviously had some good points...

[Florestan]

You'd do the same, should you have the power, right? Killing some millions of people to get order, then ruling with supreme wisdom, awareness and consciousness.

[val]

Sean

a dictator may be good or may not be. But a democracy is always mediocre because most people have poor judgement.

But the problem is: who decides the criteria to qualify a judgement as good or poor?

With all due respect, I think that you are putting yourself in a position above all the population, as the supreme judge. You assume to know what kind of knowledge is worth, what kind of decisions should be made. Plato had the same perspective but Plato justified that perspective within his global philosophy of the Forms, as I said before.

In one thing I agree with you: the solution is always in education. But free, rational and critical education is only possible in democracy.

[Florestan]

But the problem is: who decides the criteria to qualify a judgement as good or poor?

Why, El Caudillo, of course!

With all due respect, I think that you are putting yourself in a position above all the population, as the supreme judge. You assume to know what kind of knowledge is worth, what kind of decisions should be made.

The Raskolnikov analogy is more and more appropriate.

the solution is always in education. But free, rational and critical education is only possible in democracy.

Sean, paint these words on your mirror!

[Sean]

val

But the problem is: who decides the criteria to qualify a judgement as good or poor?

The knowers.

With all due respect, I think that you are putting yourself in a position above all the population, as the supreme judge.

No problem.

In one thing I agree with you: the solution is always in education. But free, rational and critical education is only possible in democracy.

Information is important, but only an elite really know what to do with it, and what it means.

[Florestan]

Information is important, but only an elite really know what to do with it, and what it means.

You confuse education with information.

[Sean]

You confuse education with inherent ability- which can't be taught.

[Florestan]

You confuse education with inherent ability- which can't be taught.

Inherent ability to do what?

[Sean]

Well as I say, it's the ability to perceive meaning, that ability that computers, who can think ie process information, nonetheless lack.

[Florestan]

You turn around your own tail, Sean!

[Ephemerid]

& Raskolnikov obviously had some good points...

Obviously you've not read Crime & Punishment.    Don't go murdering any crones...

But the problem is: who decides the criteria to qualify a judgement as good or poor?

And again, WHAT is that criteria?  Sean, you can rant about your superior intellect, but if you can't even BEGIN to come up with some sort of objective criteria to determine if they belong to your ruling class or to your serfs, then your are merely bitching that not everyone thinks like you do, listens to the same things you do, reads the same things you do, etc.  Basically, anybody that's not LIKE YOU = The Horde.^TM  There is no criteria except an arbitrary one that is centred around your own ego.  If you can't even begin to formulate an objective criteria, then you're just blowing smoke.  Not very impressive for someone of such amazing intellectual stature who is ready to rule the world.

You could care less about people, all people, including your silly fantasy view of third-world countries (yes, The Horde^TM is a worldwide phenomenon, they do not just exist in the major industrialised nations).  You don't give a damn about the exploitation of  the third-world, you don't give a damn about the supposed "decline of the west," the only thing you care about is having your own ego stroked because you can parrot Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy and you think that you automatically deserve special treatment cos you're just so smart. 

This is the sort of crap I expect from a 15-year old kid.  Grow up.  You might actually do some actual GOOD in the world.  You are better than this drivel you believe, you really are. 

[Sean]

Ephemerid, etc

You lot seem a lot more interested in this than me actually. I could spend time detailing out standards of intellectual, and especially ethical and aesthetical perception, and approaches to problem solving and learning, that provide exactly the criteria we're looking for. However it would take time, and moreover the 'objective' kind of criteria you're looking for doesn't really obtain here as it's not another in an endless modernist type series of principles, but in fact subjectively grounded, to do with the evaluating capacities of the mind, and not related to objective facts that are self-evidently appraisable...

Enough.

[Hector]

To say the US is a two-party state is a gross simplification.  The major parties themselves are in essence coalitions, encompassing groups that have widely variant views.  At each election cycle there is a debate as to what "planks" will be included in the "party platforms" as the two parties vie for "independent" or "center" votes. 

That is a perception that could have only emanated from the States.

Clearly, the view from across the pond is quite the opposite as one exceedingly right-wing Party thrashes out through a convoluted system who is acceptable enough to the electorate whilst a barely left-of-centre Party does the same thing.

The chance of a genuine alternative, and I can recall Senator Eugene McCarthy in the, when, sixties, seventies is remote.

If the major Parties are coalitions then it is because the first-past-the-post system forces them to be so.

I do not believe that they are and I doubt whether anyone outside the Americas does.

[head-case]

That is a perception that could have only emanated from the States.

Clearly, the view from across the pond is quite the opposite as one exceedingly right-wing Party thrashes out through a convoluted system who is acceptable enough to the electorate whilst a barely left-of-centre Party does the same thing.

The chance of a genuine alternative, and I can recall Senator Eugene McCarthy in the, when, sixties, seventies is remote.

If the major Parties are coalitions then it is because the first-past-the-post system forces them to be so.

I do not believe that they are and I doubt whether anyone outside the Americas does.

You assume that Europeans understand the American system better than Americans do? 

[Ephemerid]

Ephemerid, etc

You lot seem a lot more interested in this than me actually. I could spend time detailing out standards of intellectual, and especially ethical and aesthetical perception, and approaches to problem solving and learning, that provide exactly the criteria we're looking for. However it would take time, and moreover the 'objective' kind of criteria you're looking for doesn't really obtain here as it's not another in an endless modernist type series of principles, but in fact subjectively grounded, to do with the evaluating capacities of the mind, and not related to objective facts that are self-evidently appraisable...

Enough.

You brought up your so-called utopian ideals, not anyone else.  This is a discussion board.  I'm discussing.  

I assume you wouldn't be dictating to each individual single-handedly where their role in life is (were your little fantasy to come true)? you would have to have others carry out your plan, which means you need a policy that you can pass on & to implement your programme-- in other words, some sort of method to distinguish the sheep from the goats.  Clearly you are not ready to rule the world!  

You must already have some criteria since you have the wisdom to distinguish between "the enlightened" and "the horde."  And you admit that its subjective, well, then what makes your subjectively grounded ideas so important that you must impose it upon billions of people's lives?  Why should anyone obey you?

[Ephemerid]

Clearly, the view from across the pond is quite the opposite as one exceedingly right-wing Party thrashes out through a convoluted system who is acceptable enough to the electorate whilst a barely left-of-centre Party does the same thing.

The chance of a genuine alternative, and I can recall Senator Eugene McCarthy in the, when, sixties, seventies is remote.

Agreed.  The fact that Clinton is perceived by many Americans as a "liberal" is a joke (Obama is hardly any better).  Meanwhile Kucnich and Gravel were all but ignored.  The entire political dialogue in the US is skewered very far to the right-- its very disappointing. 

[Lethevich]

Agreed.  The fact that Clinton is perceived by many Americans as a "liberal" is a joke (Obama is hardly any better).  Meanwhile Kucnich and Gravel were all but ignored.  The entire political dialogue in the US is skewered very far to the right-- its very disappointing. 

I wasn't aware that "liberal" could be used as an insult until I began to frequent American forums Took some getting used to.

[Ephemerid]

I wasn't aware that "liberal" could be used as an insult until I began to frequent American forums Took some getting used to.

  I know.  The bizarre thing is that elsewhere Kucinich & Gravel would be considered just run-of-the-mill social democrats elsewhere.  But here in the US, they are just a bunch of looney leftists not even worthy of consideration, just as the Green party.  It strikes me as odd that Clinton or Obama could even be considered liberal at all...