[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[John Carl]

Platt and Arlo,

It occurred to me when Arlo refuted "reason" as subjective, earlier, that
maybe Platt could have used "reasonings" instead.  Thus signifying what I
think he meant with his repeated query - "whose reason?".

Thus instead,  "whose reasonings are we going to rely upon"?  When we agree
that  reason should be our guide, we mean men and women  working out the
best reasonings they can articulate, and deciding thusly.


> [Arlo]
> I didn't say "reason" was objective either. You seem to be trying to force
> reason to be either subjective or objective, and I think this is a
> metaphysical
> split I disagree with.
>
> This is like asking if social patterns are objective or subjective, or if
> biological patterns are objective or subjective. These are invalid
> questions,
> IMO.
>
> [P]
> I don't think subjective and objective have been repealed as valid
> concepts. In
> fact, they're the basis of the contemporary worldview. So, your saying
> they're
> invalid puzzles me, especially since Pirsig said his first two value levels
> could be considered objective and the upper two subjective.
>
>
Platt:

I think the history of the U.S. Constitution shows it was document drafted
> and
> approved by a mixture of social, intellectual and religious values --
> imperfect
> to be sure but one that reflected the various interests of the citizenry at
> that time whose primary motivation was to prevent the establishment of an
> authoritarian national government.



John:  Yes and the reasonings and mechanisms were intertwined.  Nobody
wanted a dominant central power to obviate their regional needs.  It was the
mechanism of self-interested parties negotiating a common good, and I'd say
while that was a social drive, they brought a lot of new and revolutionary
intellectual patterns in to the task.  So as you say, Platt, definitely a
mixture.

I keep finding this, no single phenomenal pattern existing at any particular
level,  but everything occurring in a dichotomous relation of upper and
lower levels, with the lower level bringing the force, and the upper, the
guidance.

Hmmmm... as frank so frankly puts it.



> So while intellect played a role, perhaps
> even a dominant role, other factors were in play. When it comes to
> governing I
> think this is as it should be -- many views considered, none banned from
> the
> marketplace of ideas.                 .
>
>