Really True Logic

2008-12-22 05:12:00

LWK:

"Part of the problem is what some have called the 'not invented here' syndrome. You talk a lot about principles but often have great difficulty recognizing principles others attempt to show you. I have noticed this before in discussions with you. You often demonstrate great principles, but are in turn unable to recognize clear principles others give to you. If you didn't 'invent it' ('not invented here') then you often just don't get it.

"For example, I again quote you when you said:

"'First of all we have never had a true democracy in the history of the world so the flaws here that are seen cannot be demonstrated.'

"If one understands principles then one understands that there are principles involved and one doesn't have to have a perfect example to deduce valid principles about democracy simply because a sufficiently perfect example has not been seen yet.

"It is perfectly irrelevant whether or not we have seen a perfect example of democracy. We can still deduce principles that are valid in regard to democracy."

JJ:

You must have been misunderstanding many things I have written about as I have basically taught this same thing. In yesterday's post I said:

"One can examine how elements of democracy have influenced society and then make an educated guess as to the pros and cons of a true (much more accurate word than 'pure') democracy."

What I said that you are resisting was that a true democracy cannot be presently demonstrated. That is an entirely different thing than saying, as you just did -- that we can examine principles and reach true conclusions.

Even so, many of the details and problems in working out a true principle will not be foreseen. A principle must be demonstrated in reality to know all the details and problems that will surface.

LWK:

"It is like the example I gave you about Socialism. Advocates of Socialism will complain that a sufficiently pure example has not existed therefore we cannot condemn it as impractical. But in fact we can deduce perfectly valid principles that apply to socialism and tell us that it can never work, regardless of the examples that so have existed."

JJ:

I don't know why do would think I disagree with you on this.

Quoting JJ, LWK writes:

"A true democracy is not an impossibility...."

LWK:

"No one said it was impossible. What I did say is that we can deduce true principles about democracy regardless of what forms of democracy that so far have existed."

JJ:

Since we agree on this why are you spending so much time arguing with me in this subject? Perhaps you can specify where you really disagree with me.

Using logic and principles one can predict possibilities, but in the demonstration of an idea you have free will and unforeseen circumstances entering in making it impossible to predict all the details.

Using your thinking concerning principles I can see that Molecular politics can indeed work, but cannot predict all the problems that must be solved as we go toward manifestation. I do not think you can either.

LWK quoting JJ again:

""Now anyone could take this word 'true' and compare it to the word 'pure' and dissect it to the degree that would make the establishment of 100% pure democracy impossible...."

LWK then responds:

"No one said anything about democracy being impossible. It is certainly possible. The more interesting question deals with what the results would be. The founders of the United States were familiar with the history of democracy in Athens in the ancient world and therefore they felt it necessary to put limits on democracy through, for example, the Bill of Rights."

JJ:

Again we agree.

LWK again quoting JJ says:

"It is quite obvious that something that has never existed and does not now exist cannot be presently demonstrated. Such a thing is an impossibility."

LWK responds with:

"However, principles about such a system can be logically demonstrated. If you do not understand that then you do not truly understand the nature of principles."

JJ:

Then you should be able to see that Molecular Politics can work. What principle are you using to conclude otherwise?

LWK:

"The point was from the beginning that we do not require a pure or perfect example to make logical deductions about democracy."

JJ:

No one said otherwise. This is why I conclude Molecular politics can work.

LWK quoting JJ:

"I can see no flaw in my logic."

LWK:

"I agree. You rarely see any flaw in your logic ('not invented here')."

JJ:

Then maybe you can give the principle that proves your point that I am resisting. I am always happy to discover the error of my ways.

I'm kind of left wondering here if you really disagree with me or just arguing for the sake of arguing.