-
Posts
-
Bonita wrote:
Some think the top economic 1% and Wall Street are the privileged elite while others think the “deep state” and socialistic academia are the privileged elite. It’s all a matter of perspective.
This sounds like you are painting all of academia with the ‘socialist’ brush. I hope that is not the case. Can you explain what you mean by the phrase “socialistic academia” and why you didn’t simply say ‘socialists’? Why are academics who happen to subscribe to socialism somehow deserving of the ‘privileged elite’ label; but scientists or doctors or plumbers who are socialist are not? And are you intentionally lumping the “deep state” (definition, please) with academia and if so, on what basis?
Back on topic of this thread: the best I can tell, the ‘glorification of mediocrity’ is the widespread acceptance and promotion of the lowest common denominator; particularly with regard to emotional/ social maturity and ethics. Wherever a crowd gathers, you will soon find that the most childish of behaviors quickly becomes the norm amongst the crowd unless a very strong leader is present to distract or dissuade a rapid descent into mediocrity.
Is it now clear?
No, not entirely. Getting there though.
I agree that civilizations evolve, but democracy is not a product of evolution according to 71:2.1. Tell me more specifically how mediocrity is a step in the evolution of civilization and why does that make it a danger to democracy? I’m not connecting the dots. Maybe we have different ideas concerning the meaning of mediocre?
I think mediocrity is when citizens prefer their institutions control them and society. The opposite of mediocrity demands that citizens control their institutions, which is essentially what democracy is all about. (69:1.1; 99:3.4)
Is it now clear?
No, not entirely. Getting there though. I agree that civilizations evolve, but democracy is not a product of evolution according to 71:2.1. Tell me more specifically how mediocrity is a step in the evolution of civilization and why does that make it a danger to democracy?
Maybe phase is a better word.
I’m not connecting the dots. Maybe we have different ideas concerning the meaning of mediocre? I think mediocrity is when citizens prefer their institutions control them and society. The opposite of mediocrity demands that citizens control their institutions, which is essentially what democracy is all about. (69:1.1; 99:3.4)
Agreed, it has tentacles in nearly every other aspect of civilization, including entertainment, industry, even religion. I end up thinking mediocrity is a phase, an intrinsic passageway, as with evil, encountered in times of rapid transition, like the “material comfort era”. 50:5:6 (577.1)
.
Richard E Warren
Even in the material comfort era, I don’t think mediocrity is a phase as much as a problem within society. In the quote you provided it says the truth-loving groups subjugate the weak groups. So I don’t see mediocrity as a phase but a problem that society needs to learn how to deal with. Subjugate is an interesting word. I think it’s similar to self-control in the individual but applied to society. It means to bring under control. How many times does TUB tell us that our society needs to do that? Every new challenge to society reveals weaknesses that must be overcome in order to evolve. I think the mediocre resist.
In regards to rapid transition, I recently recalled that there is a built-in safety brake of inertia that kicks in when civilization is advancing too fast. I’m not sure if material inertia is the same as mediocrity, but I think they are related. If so, then perhaps you have a point about “phases”.
68:4.5 Early man was mightily gripped by custom; the savage was a veritable slave to usage; but there have arisen ever and anon those variations from type who have dared to inaugurate new ways of thinking and improved methods of living. Nevertheless, the inertia of primitive man constitutes the biologic safety brake against precipitation too suddenly into the ruinous maladjustment of a too rapidly advancing civilization.
118:8.6 The slowness of evolution, of human cultural progress, testifies to the effectiveness of that brake — material inertia — which so efficiently operates to retard dangerous velocities of progress. Thus does time itself cushion and distribute the otherwise lethal results of premature escape from the next-encompassing barriers to human action. For when culture advances overfast, when material achievement outruns the evolution of worship-wisdom, then does civilization contain within itself the seeds of retrogression; and unless buttressed by the swift augmentation of experiential wisdom, such human societies will recede from high but premature levels of attainment, and the “dark ages” of the interregnum of wisdom will bear witness to the inexorable restoration of the imbalance between self-liberty and self-control.
Even in the material comfort era, I don’t think mediocrity is a phase as much as a problem within society. In the quote you provided it says the truth-loving groups subjugate the weak groups. So I don’t see mediocrity as a phase but a problem that society needs to learn how to deal with. Subjugate is an interesting word. I think it’s similar to self-control in the individual but applied to society. It means to bring under control. How many times does TUB tell us that our society needs to do that? Every new challenge to society reveals weaknesses that must be overcome in order to evolve. I think the mediocre resist. In regards to rapid transition, I recently recalled that there is a built-in safety brake of inertia that kicks in when civilization is advancing too fast. I’m not sure if material inertia is the same as mediocrity, but I think they are related. If so, then perhaps you have a point about “phases”.
68:4.5 Early man was mightily gripped by custom; the savage was a veritable slave to usage; but there have arisen ever and anon those variations from type who have dared to inaugurate new ways of thinking and improved methods of living. Nevertheless, the inertia of primitive man constitutes the biologic safety brake against precipitation too suddenly into the ruinous maladjustment of a too rapidly advancing civilization. 118:8.6 The slowness of evolution, of human cultural progress, testifies to the effectiveness of that brake — material inertia — which so efficiently operates to retard dangerous velocities of progress. Thus does time itself cushion and distribute the otherwise lethal results of premature escape from the next-encompassing barriers to human action. For when culture advances overfast, when material achievement outruns the evolution of worship-wisdom, then does civilization contain within itself the seeds of retrogression; and unless buttressed by the swift augmentation of experiential wisdom, such human societies will recede from high but premature levels of attainment, and the “dark ages” of the interregnum of wisdom will bear witness to the inexorable restoration of the imbalance between self-liberty and self-control.
Good thoughts/quotes. Problem is probably just as good a word as “phase” in this application. And yes, we’re all about subjugation, aren’t we! The never-ending project of personal perfection, nothing mediocre about that, except leaving it behind. There’s a song in there somewhere
.
Richard E Warren
Bonita wrote:
Some think the top economic 1% and Wall Street are the privileged elite while others think the “deep state” and socialistic academia are the privileged elite. It’s all a matter of perspective.
This sounds like you are painting all of academia with the ‘socialist’ brush. I hope that is not the case. Can you explain what you mean by the phrase “socialistic academia” and why you didn’t simply say ‘socialists’? Why are academics who happen to subscribe to socialism somehow deserving of the ‘privileged elite’ label; but scientists or doctors or plumbers who are socialist are not? And are you intentionally lumping the “deep state” (definition, please) with academia and if so, on what basis?
Wondering if maybe Bonita missed your questions, Keryn.
Back on topic of this thread: the best I can tell, the ‘glorification of mediocrity’ is the widespread acceptance and promotion of the lowest common denominator; particularly with regard to emotional/ social maturity and ethics.
That sounds right, perhaps throw in morality too.
Wherever a crowd gathers, you will soon find that the most childish of behaviors quickly becomes the norm amongst the crowd unless a very strong leader is present to distract or dissuade a rapid descent into mediocrity.
Seems like crowd dynamics can span the spectrum from base mediocrity to the heights of nobility. So are you saying leadership is the crucial factor in transcending social, ethical, and moral mediocrity?
.
.
Richard E Warren
Bonita wrote:
Some think the top economic 1% and Wall Street are the privileged elite while others think the “deep state” and socialistic academia are the privileged elite. It’s all a matter of perspective.
This sounds like you are painting all of academia with the ‘socialist’ brush. I hope that is not the case. Can you explain what you mean by the phrase “socialistic academia” and why you didn’t simply say ‘socialists’? Why are academics who happen to subscribe to socialism somehow deserving of the ‘privileged elite’ label; but scientists or doctors or plumbers who are socialist are not? And are you intentionally lumping the “deep state” (definition, please) with academia and if so, on what basis? Back on topic of this thread: the best I can tell, the ‘glorification of mediocrity’ is the widespread acceptance and promotion of the lowest common denominator; particularly with regard to emotional/ social maturity and ethics. Wherever a crowd gathers, you will soon find that the most childish of behaviors quickly becomes the norm amongst the crowd unless a very strong leader is present to distract or dissuade a rapid descent into mediocrity.
I agree Keryn!
It would be nice if subjective political opinions and personal bias could be left out of the discussion. Anyone want to hear my political opinions? Yeah…I didn’t think so.
I believe in the decadence of prosperity effect which is not universal but does infect the weak and lazy and self centered who tend to glorify mediocrity. ..and also to define it!
Prosperity is a test. So are individual riches. That is another and even more difficult test. Social and general prosperity delivers universal opportunities for either excellence or mediocrity as well as materialism or service. We choose our experience of, response to, and expression of social prosperity and personal wealth based on personal values.
Wherever a crowd gathers, you will soon find that the most childish of behaviors quickly becomes the norm amongst the crowd unless a very strong leader is present to distract or dissuade a rapid descent into mediocrity.
Seems like crowd dynamics can span the spectrum from base mediocrity to the heights of nobility. So are you saying leadership is the crucial factor in transcending social, ethical, and moral mediocrity?
Rick, I don’t think it’s that simple, so I wouldn’t say it is “the crucial” factor but it *can* certainly be one of an array of factors. A strong leader who has both charisma and integrity can have tremendous positive influence; but that alone is probably not sufficient.
I do not think this quote has been posted on this topic yet, but it sheds some light on medocrity in democracy.
88:3.4 (970.5) The insignia of priestly and kingly office were eventually regarded as fetishes, and the fetish of the state supreme has passed through many stages of development, from clans to tribes, from suzerainty to sovereignty, from totems to flags. Fetish kings have ruled by “divine right,” and many other forms of government have obtained. Men have also made a fetish of democracy, the exaltation and adoration of the common man’s ideas when collectively called “public opinion.” One man’s opinion, when taken by itself, is not regarded as worth much, but when many men are collectively functioning as a democracy, this same mediocre judgment is held to be the arbiter of justice and the standard of righteousness.
.
.
The never-ending project of personal perfection, nothing mediocre about that, except leaving it behind.
What do you mean by “leaving it behind”?
Rick wrote: Seems like crowd dynamics can span the spectrum from base mediocrity to the heights of nobility. So are you saying leadership is the crucial factor in transcending social, ethical, and moral mediocrity?
Rick, I don’t think it’s that simple, so I wouldn’t say it is “the crucial” factor but it *can* certainly be one of an array of factors. A strong leader who has both charisma and integrity can have tremendous positive influence; but that alone is probably not sufficient. I do not think this quote has been posted on this topic yet, but it sheds some light on medocrity in democracy.
88:3.4 (970.5) The insignia of priestly and kingly office were eventually regarded as fetishes, and the fetish of the state supreme has passed through many stages of development, from clans to tribes, from suzerainty to sovereignty, from totems to flags. Fetish kings have ruled by “divine right,” and many other forms of government have obtained. Men have also made a fetish of democracy, the exaltation and adoration of the common man’s ideas when collectively called “public opinion.” One man’s opinion, when taken by itself, is not regarded as worth much, but when many men are collectively functioning as a democracy, this same mediocre judgment is held to be the arbiter of justice and the standard of righteousness.
Agreed Keryn, and “public opinion” ties in with the fifth danger on the author’s list.
So if good leadership can’t, by itself, overcome the tide of mediocrity, the only other factor that can tip the balance away from the mediocre is making better humans, no? I think that is behind the authors’ many admonitions about creating good families and avoiding the consequences of unrestrained multiplication of our worst traits.
,
Richard E Warren
The never-ending project of personal perfection, nothing mediocre about that, except leaving it behind.
What do you mean by “leaving it behind”?
Well, my reasoning was that if mediocrity is a phase to be passed thru, then it must needs be left behind, that’s all.
.
Richard E Warren
.
Can’t recall definitions of mediocre being posted on this thread.
From Wiktionary:
1. (now rare) The quality of being intermediate between two extremes; a mean.
2. (obsolete) A middle course of action; moderation, balance. quotations3. (uncountable) The condition of being mediocre; having only an average degree of quality, skills etc.; no better than standard.
4. An individual with mediocre abilities or achievements.Source: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mediocrity
Not sure what is meant by “(uncountable)”, but that definition seems to be the consensus.
My 1952 dictionary has this: “…Of middling quality; of only moderate excellence; neither good nor bad; indifferent… Another more modern one (1996) lists those and: “barely adequate, poor or inferior”.
Stagnation might be added, eh?
.
.
Richard E Warren
One more that fits but doesn’t use the word mediocre, spotted by a reader on another forum.
It’s from the residue of John Zebedee’s writings, in the last book of the New Testament:
Book of Revelation 3:14-22
14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
.
Richard E Warren
Nice to here from you Keryn.
The democracy experiment in the U.S. is young in the scheme of things. The UB does not disparage other forms of government where the rule of law prevails, where free speech prevails, and where the citizenry can persue an education, work, and religious affiliation or no affiliation, according to their own desserts. (Didn’t Jesus say the poor will always be with us?) I think the most significant aspect of good governance is the rule of law combined with the right to vote for the leaders who are doing the governing. The U.S. democracy (with all its bumps and warts) is a representative form of government.
The book refers to a “social problem” recognized on mansonia and which is under the jurisdiction of the social architects there. It pertains to group of three or more individuals who are assigned to working together for service. In the scheme of mansonia progression, three or more persons working together are likely to be a social problem. (39:3.6 ) In a situation where three or more persons grouped together for service, one of them will rise to a leadership position in the group. The leadership ratio is 1:100 in a population. Hopefully such leaders on earth are wise. The book has quite a lot to say about the value of wise leadership.
And as regards mediocrity, if the definition includes an average or middle intelligence where most of us function, leadership should foster the average or stabilized human being instead of the extremes.
.
68:6.11 From a world standpoint, overpopulation has never been a serious problem in the past, but if war is lessened and science increasingly controls human diseases, it may become a serious problem in the near future. At such a time the great test of the wisdom of world leadership will present itself. Will Urantia rulers have the insight and courage to foster the multiplication of the average or stabilized human being instead of the extremes of the supernormal and the enormously increasing groups of the subnormal? The normal man should be fostered; he is the backbone of civilization and the source of the mutant geniuses of the race. The subnormal man should be kept under society’s control; no more should be produced than are required to administer the lower levels of industry, those tasks requiring intelligence above the animal level but making such low-grade demands as to prove veritable slavery and bondage for the higher types of mankind.The normal man should be fostered. To me that means average or ordinary, neither good nor bad. Aren’t we humans more like children than anything else?
103:2.5 The psychology of a child is naturally positive, not negative. So many mortals are negative because they were so trained. When it is said that the child is positve, reference is made to his moral impulses, those powers of mind whose emergence signals the arrival of the Thought Adjuster.Even with a Thought Adjuster, do we not fall short from time to time? Do our leaders of government fall short? Do our religious leaders fall short? Ummm. Yes, very much so. In the scheme of things we are VERY young.…The normal man should be fostered. To me that means average or ordinary, neither good nor bad.
Really! Can’t agree, Mara. Goodness needs to be fostered seems like. Anyway, isn’t goodness normal, and the antithesis of mediocre?
.
Richard E Warren
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.