Egypt

[Mithrandir]

Lumpen proles rise up against the oppressor, is this shit ANUSian or what?

[Conservationist]

CIA and George Soros support a Revolution, so the People rise up and destroy, which then shows us the true face of democracy: an angry mob without ideas, reverting to the simplest possible solutions. So, an Islamic theocracy! That wasn't what all our good liberals intended. The People as usual know nothing except that they want more, and those of us watching now see the truth: strong oppressors rise up where the People are so clueless they need someone with a good whip hand riding over them or they eat the seed corn.

[scourge]

Like Tunisia last month, it's being sold as a spontaneous uprising of wireless handheld connected citizens. The obliviot people are unable to organize anything without an incendiary point of contact, posing anonymously as one of them, instructing them on why and how to revolt. This fact alone contradicts the viability of the democracy model we're supposed buy into.

The people are going to get either an open authoriatrian they may not have voted for or secret manipulators they certainly never voted for.

Ukraine had its own uprising right before the web/wireless years. Yep, Soros again.

In what became known as the Jasmine Revolution, a sudden and explosive wave of street protests ousted the authoritarian president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, who had ruled with an iron hand for 23 years. On January 14, Mr. Ben Ali left the country, after trying unsuccessfully to placate the demonstrators with promises of elections. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/tunisia/index.html

[Transcix]

. . . so the People rise up and destroy, which then shows us the true face of democracy: an angry mob without ideas, reverting to the simplest possible solutions.

I definitely think if you're going to transition from a dictator to a philosopher king, you need democracy in-between.

[nous]

. . . so the People rise up and destroy, which then shows us the true face of democracy: an angry mob without ideas, reverting to the simplest possible solutions.

I definitely think if you're going to transition from a dictator to a philosopher king, you need democracy in-between.

Why?

[Transcix]

. . . so the People rise up and destroy, which then shows us the true face of democracy: an angry mob without ideas, reverting to the simplest possible solutions.

I definitely think if you're going to transition from a dictator to a philosopher king, you need democracy in-between.

Why?

Because if the people have been oppressed all these years then they're just an angry mob. If a philosopher king is going to rule then the people have to accept him (or else it's a dictatorship again), and to accept him they need to be more aware. To some extent he can teach awareness to them simultaneously while he leads them--the Tao Te Ching offers some good advice here--but if they've just been ruled by an oppressor they may not know what "freedom" is yet but they want "freedom" nonetheless. You see a proper philosopher king gives not his people freedom but rather destroys his people's thinking that they're anything other than free... try telling the people of Egypt their president hasn't been smothering their freedom all this time. After all, freedom has its limits, the human psyche can't transcend its own parameters any more than the divine can create an object it can't create, and so as there are many ways to get to the same place the lesson of freedom is an important one and in some situations an inevitable one.

It strikes me now that from the point of view of nihilism my portrayal of freedom may sound absurd. LOL But I maintain that a painting can only exist with the painter in the first place just as a choice with the chooser, and the painter is by definition free because he is a painter.

[nous]

I thought along those lines too, until this problem occured to me: No equality-minded low-brow mob will ever accept a philosopher king without some element that forces them to do so. Because the lowest, or common man does not want to transcend himself. But that is essentially what accepting a philosopher king means: to transcend oneself.

So then I asked myself again, if not from democracy, then wherefrom could the philosopher king arise? And I think that subjectively, there must be some kind of divine inspiration, and objectively, force of arms. Because neither the mob nor a tyrant would give way voluntarily.

-*-          -*-          -*-

On freedom as absence of force, I'd say that "force" can be said to mean that A effects something in B. From which it can be said that there is no absolutely free being other than the Absolute Good itself, and that the more we resemble this Good, the free-er we are.

But in liberal jargon, freedom seems to mean something else. Every prole would agree that he is affected by some B, but he would add: with my assent. So that it now means: freedom is to be affected by something, AND willing this. It is obvious to me that this second thing called "freedom" is very different from the first.

Note that every normal human being has will, but that those who resemble the Highest Good will be able to act truly freely because they are free.
On the other hand, those who are far from the Highest Good will be unfree, but still be able to act according to the liberal definition of freedom. So in a very weak sense of freedom, they will be free, but in the intrinsic sense of freedom, they will be unfree.

What follows from this? I think that this follows, namely that only does he truly act free who intends, by his act of the will, to either be good or become good, i.e. closer to the Absolute Good; and that on the contrary he who does not intend to do this, acts unfree and slavelike. Or more succinct: free will is either the good will, or the will towards the good.

For Egypt, or any country ruled by a dictator, this means that the liberal understanding of freedom is not a good criterion to judge the real freedom of the people. Yea, these citizens would be free while enduring some good that is against their will; and they would be unfree while accepting some evil that pleases them.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

Before the inevitable obfuscation, I will add:

What nous is essentially saying is that the popular definition of freedom is enslavement. Why is this so? Because without a system of knowledge upon which to organize and refer your actions to, you are 'free' in the sense that nothing determines your actions, but enslaved in that you will become a blind victim the your surrounding elements. Your indecision and constant deliberation over every thought and action will result in suffering, which will become the focus of your contemplation, further distracting you from contemplating how you should organize your thought in order to actually decide on some course of action to pursue. When you accept some form of order,  a true form of order (i.e. a systemic one), then you are truly 'freed' because at this point you have an axis upon which to base your decisions that is not subject to the distraction caused by the multitude of emotional and physical reactions you have to every and any stimulus you receive. You can call this form of order whatever you like: life, God, reality, philosophy, tradition, most of it leads to the One source that all ideas must be based upon anyway. Egyptians would do well to realize this, but if they did, their rebellion would probably suddenly seem much of much less importance.

[August]

Before the inevitable obfuscation, I will add:

What nous is essentially saying is that the popular definition of freedom is enslavement. Why is this so? Because without a system of knowledge upon which to organize and refer your actions to, you are 'free' in the sense that nothing determines your actions, but enslaved in that you will become a blind victim the your surrounding elements. Your indecision and constant deliberation over every thought and action will result in suffering, which will become the focus of your contemplation, further distracting you from contemplating how you should organize your thought in order to actually decide on some course of action to pursue. When you accept some form of order,  a true form of order (i.e. a systemic one), then you are truly 'freed' because at this point you have an axis upon which to base your decisions that is not subject to the distraction caused by the multitude of emotional and physical reactions you have to every and any stimulus you receive. You can call this form of order whatever you like: life, God, reality, philosophy, tradition, most of it leads to the One source that all ideas must be based upon anyway. Egyptians would do well to realize this, but if they did, their rebellion would probably suddenly seem much of much less importance.

However, all of this is then again assuming that the current order is optimal. You are basically talking about form while ignoring execution, as if every totalitarian rule is good based on the sole premise that it is in fact not democratic. Let us take the example of Robert Mugabe: what positive sociocultural foundation or "system of knowledge" has this leader established? This man is more of a simple criminal than an ideologist or visionary. If a strong leader only works for personal gain (as in the case of Mugabe) instead of the ultimate good of his society, he defeats his purpose and is obviously not fit for his role. Now, as for the specific case of Egypt, I am not sufficiently familiar with how efficiently this country has been ruled by its regime to have an opinion, but of course it is obvious that the mob-infused political chaos they are heading for is not to prefer.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

You misunderstood me, I never said that the current order is optimal. In fact, the current order could very much not be systemic, but based completely on a human central authority, which is a path to delusion if I've ever seen one. I think that to carry on this discussion effectively we would need to define terms such as order, knowledge, and systemic thought, which would require another thread. I'll make due here with saying that the scope of an individual is inevitably narrow, and thus order, in order for it to actually classify as order, must have a foundation in adaptivity, or observation of pattern-structures in reality.

[nous]

However, all of this is then again assuming that the current order is optimal. You are basically talking about form while ignoring execution, as if every totalitarian rule is good based on the sole premise that it is in fact not democratic. Let us take the example of Robert Mugabe: what positive sociocultural foundation or "system of knowledge" has this leader established? This man is more of a simple criminal than an ideologist or visionary. If a strong leader only works for personal gain (as in the case of Mugabe) instead of the ultimate good of his society, he defeats his purpose and is obviously not fit for his role. Now, as for the specific case of Egypt, I am not sufficiently familiar with how efficiently this country has been ruled by its regime to have an opinion, but of course it is obvious that the mob-infused political chaos they are heading for is not to prefer.

Not every form of government is preferable to democracy. Actually, there are roughly three forms of government preferable to democracy: kingship, aristocracy, and a limited "democracy" (as compared to the more common ochlocracy or idiocracy which we call democracy). Oligarchy is worse than democracy, and tyranny the worst. Tyranny means that the ruler is completely self-serving.

[Cargést]

Tyranny means that the ruler is completely self-serving.

I was explaining Plato to some local Metalheads/Hessians last night, and people were confused when I had finished breaking down the five levels of government.  The point of confusion was that the best form of government was perceived to be totalitarian, and the worst was also totalitarian.  The difference lies in the above: in tyranny, the ruler is self-serving; in Kingship, the ruler serves the society.  This is an incredibly important distinction, which, thankfully, everyone managed to grasp once I'd explained it.  The problem is in getting a ruler who is entirely selfless, and will only serve his people.  I find Plato's rather weak suggestion of pulling a Pol Pot and removing children from their parents to be unsatisfactory, primarily because I endorse the concept of filial piety (it's a bit hard to respect one's parents if one's parents aren't around to be respected).

[nous]

Tyranny means that the ruler is completely self-serving.

I was explaining Plato to some local Metalheads/Hessians last night, and people were confused when I had finished breaking down the five levels of government.  The point of confusion was that the best form of government was perceived to be totalitarian, and the worst was also totalitarian.  The difference lies in the above: in tyranny, the ruler is self-serving; in Kingship, the ruler serves the society.  This is an incredibly important distinction, which, thankfully, everyone managed to grasp once I'd explained it.  The problem is in getting a ruler who is entirely selfless, and will only serve his people.  I find Plato's rather weak suggestion of pulling a Pol Pot and removing children from their parents to be unsatisfactory, primarily because I endorse the concept of filial piety (it's a bit hard to respect one's parents if one's parents aren't around to be respected).

Yes, according to Plato, the philosopher kings do not even want to be kings, because it is a huge responsibility; it is hard enough to live a just life, but to govern a State justly is much more difficult.
The community of wives and children really is curious. I think to a certain degree (and maybe for a very selected few) it could be possible, like celibacy is possible, but then again, such a family seems to infringe intrinsic morality, while celibacy does not. Plato errs when he says that multiple families destroy the unity of the caste; on the contrary, the family has its own place and its members can be analogically compared to the individual faculties or the castes.

[Transcix]

Tyranny means that the ruler is completely self-serving.

I was explaining Plato to some local Metalheads/Hessians last night, and people were confused when I had finished breaking down the five levels of government.  The point of confusion was that the best form of government was perceived to be totalitarian, and the worst was also totalitarian.  The difference lies in the above: in tyranny, the ruler is self-serving; in Kingship, the ruler serves the society.  This is an incredibly important distinction, which, thankfully, everyone managed to grasp once I'd explained it.  The problem is in getting a ruler who is entirely selfless, and will only serve his people.  I find Plato's rather weak suggestion of pulling a Pol Pot and removing children from their parents to be unsatisfactory, primarily because I endorse the concept of filial piety (it's a bit hard to respect one's parents if one's parents aren't around to be respected).

It's just that in my view, I don't see that ideal philosopher kings exist yet in the world, there is still too much ignorance. So I don't root for an ideal case of philosopher kingship to take place in Egypt because I'm totally convinced it can't happen, the people who would be able to take power any way (democratically or by force) would simply not be wise enough to produce the good kind of totalitarianism, it would always be the band kind. Good point that you bring up though, I didn't address the point well in my original reply to this thread.

I see some people responded to my comment but I don't really want to reply, I haven't even read the replies to my post, it's just that I'm sure it would be a very involved conversation and I'm really not looking to get into an involved conversation at the moment. But I wanted to make this courtesy of letting you know, it's really nothing personal I haven't even read the other replies.

[scourge]

The difference lies in the above: in tyranny, the ruler is self-serving; in Kingship, the ruler serves the society.

When they do not see themselves served by his majesty, the people are going to reject this. They do not readily grasp the component and composite relationship. The people will need a way to understand that when society is served, they are served. Even more compelling, it isn't the place of (or possible for) any leadership body of any system to individually serve each component in the first place.

This is one of the problems of democracy. Democratic leaders endeavor to serve the people, at the expense of the society and they typically only serve some constituents, not all of the people. Worse, they may claim that by serving some of these people, society is then served. Given the cost to society, to those components not served by democratic leadership, this isn't always true and the results cannot be known until long after the fact in any case.

Only by maintaining and improving the society are all of the people served. The crowd will then howl about hand chopping the thieves and strangling the infidel wives to remove those components turned cancerous. They will claim that not all of the people were served. But they will not show that society was not served and that they are not better off in the aftermath.