[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Andre Broersen]

Platt to John:

It's purpose is to show that one cannot make sense unless he steps outside the box he is trying to define. It's another way of pointing out that a tongue cannot taste itself, or that to assert "There
are no absolutes" is self-contradictory. My favorite story illustrating the necessity to get outside the box to understand the box is a fish when asked, "How do you like being in the ocean?" replied, "What ocean?"

Andre:
You are mixing up some levels here Platt and your reasoning is very confusing: the car and car park:inorganic patterns of value; the fish and ocean:organic patterns of value. You are using these to make a point about the intellectual level.

You are suggesting that there is no difference between car parks and no difference between oceans. Now, you may be correct about the former...I don't know if a car cares about where it is parked (it has no 'freedom' to do anything about this except rust away quicker in a low quality carpark than a better one) , but a fish does make quality responses within its environment...biological (freedom) responses. Certain fish are only to be found... .whilst other fish are only to be found... .

You (and Bodvar for that matter) are assuming that there is no difference at the social level either. That the social level is one homogeneous whole i.e. the Inuit culture is the same as the Italian culture and the Aboriginal culture is the same as the American culture, or, for that matter, Dutch culture is the same as the German culture. This is simply not true and I know this because I have experienced different cultures. We do have freedom of movement to a much larger extent than the fish has.

I have been able to step outside of 'my' little social box  (The Netherlands) and lived in another, different social box called Australia, and of late China. This has allowed me a 'comparative' perspective on Dutch cultural patterns of value(i.e. social/intellectual) from the point of view of e.g. Australian cultural values or Chinese cultural values.

The point I am trying to make is that this allows one the experience to realize that Dutch cultural values are not the only values through which to experience the world. That is, this level consists of a great variety of different cultural patterns of value,of experience. And some have more quality than others.

But you (and Bodvar) will argue that there is fundamentally no difference.

Same with intellectual patterns of value. You (and Bodvar) seem to think that this level is homogeneous i.e. it is all SOL. The way the Dutch 'think' is the same as the Chinese 'think' is the same as the Inuit 'think' is the same as the Aborigine 'thinks', or for that matter the way the Italian 'thinks'.

You guys throw everything on one heap.

You do not allow an expression nor even a possibility of this higher level of (intellectual) freedom, of quality,of experience as if all social level experience is the same everywhere and generalize this same conviction about the intellectual level.

Seems to me that you (and Bodvar) do not make sense because the both of you see SOM everywhere and your posts reflect this.

And just one 'flick' will do the trick: SOM is a static intellectual pattern of value amongst many different intellectual patterns, another one of which is the MOQ. Some of more value than others depending on the journey one is engaged in.