[MD] French ingredient in the soup of sentiments

[Heather Perella]

Hello Joseph,

     Joseph said:  "Democracy is intellectual, from
the point of view of the maths, science and psychology
involved in maintaining a democratic government."

     We do not live in a democracy in the U.S.  We
live in a Republic.  Does this change anything in our
current discussion?  It depends on who we vote into
office.  What is their level of application?  Are they
strictly social or intellectual?  Now-a-days who is
intellectual in Washington, seemingly nobody.  Even if
they didn't do much I would give them credit, but
since the system depends on them doing a lot then a
flaw exists.  

     Joseph:  "Democracy is the current dominant force
in government, more and mor countries are becoming
democratic, either through choice or having it forced
apon them.  Thjis does not mean that the politicians
on show are intellectual, George W Bush as the prime
example. This does not mean that the people voting in
democratic elections are intellectual, religiously and
ideologically blinkered people vote around the world.
If the intellect is to achieve dominance over the
social level can it do so with having to go cap in
hand to those on the social and biological levels for
validation? Is that not immoral by MOQ morality?"

     Excellent point.  It is immoral.  Since the
social is dictating the intellectual in a republic,
via votes and politics, then where is the niche for
the intellect in a large society?

     Joseph:  "Is a national figure not of higher
value than a journalist or the average reader of a
newspaper?"

     No, and I think that's your point.  The social is
being valued higher than the individual where the
intellect works.  The intellect can work socially, but
not vice versa where the social hand shaking in
Washington shapes the kind of intellectual
development.  
     Sometimes I wonder if Washington was caught in
debate where nothing much was happening and their
influence upon society was diminished because of the
arguing that, that would actually be better.  Yet, a
system, the giant, is currently dependent on the
social representatives passing bills.  If they
couldn't do much anymore because argumentation is
paralyzing legislation, then wouldn't we notice DQ. 
People would be putting in their votes and the
opinions are made, yet, the actions due to the
diversity of people's knowledge and desires could
actually benefit a DQ event.  People would notice
their opinions on the debate table being put into
play, back and forth, the debate could go, and people
would then realize that what they want and what others
want is not going to happen.  Therefore locals will
have to make more decisions on their own where
geography might cut-down on the diverse opinions on
the national level.  These are all if's, with no
current reality.  Sure the bipartisanship in
Washington has become more center stage, but bills are
still passing.  This was just a thought.

SA  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com