Question: Is popularism related to mediocrity? Cannot high thinkers be part of the popular movement?
Preview: a read-only copy of the forum. To post or reply, use the current forum.
Democracy's First Danger – Mediocrity
69 posts · 7 participants · started Jul 12, 2019, 9:07 AM
Question: Is popularism related to mediocrity? Cannot high thinkers be part of the popular movement?
Do you mean populism or popularism?
Well, I spelled it wrong. It should be populism.
Sorry.
Well, I spelled it wrong. It should be populism. Sorry.
No, actually you’re right. They are two different things. From WikiDiff:
As nouns the difference between popularism and populism is that popularism is any political doctrine chosen to appeal to a majority of the electorate while populism is (philosophy) a political doctrine or philosophy that proposes that the rights and powers of ordinary people are exploited by a privileged elite, and supports their struggle to overcome this.
I think, but am not certain, that popularism has to do with public opinion and popular opinion is 5th on the list of the dangers of democracy.
71:2.6 5. Slavery to public opinion; the majority is not always right.
71:2.7 Public opinion, common opinion, has always delayed society; nevertheless, it is valuable, for, while retarding social evolution, it does preserve civilization. Education of public opinion is the only safe and true method of accelerating civilization; force is only a temporary expedient, and cultural growth will increasingly accelerate as bullets give way to ballots. Public opinion, the mores, is the basic and elemental energy in social evolution and state development, but to be of state value it must be nonviolent in expression.
When it comes to populism I think it boils down to who is considered to be the “privileged elite”. 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.
But more specifically to your question, high thinkers can definitely be mediocre. I know a few. Even TUB laments that so many great intellects are stuck in cultural bondage.
What conditions might support the diminuition of the pursuit of excellence and aspirational ideals?
Secularism, atheism, solipsism, selfish love, come first to mind… It’s hard not to equate/associate mediocrity with error/evil if not sin. It’s glorification involves going against the will of divinity. But is mediocrity’s glorification a conscious choice? Can we unchoose it? Maybe mediocrity is only a symptom, an effect of shallow choosing and lazy thinking. The root of the mediocre must be somewhere in human frailty. An animal can’t be or do anything mediocre, can it? Neither can it do anything majorocre (that should be a word)?
.I don’t think ambition, intelligence, creativity, insight, and inventiveness are limited to the religious and withheld from the secular/scientific/material pursuits of humanity or the individual. Are the unreligious or less religious mediocre? Hmmm… IMO, in my country (USA) the church going congregationalists and pulpiteers the past 3 decades have been the greatest danger to our democracy perhaps in its entire history…the moral majority is neither. Odd. Indeed, did religionists deliver democracy to our world? And how much scientific, material, economic, and other forms of secular progress has come despite the religious leaders and masses? And what of those who murdered Jesus? Weren’t they religious? This issue is more complicated I think. Religionists do not necessarily pursue excellence and secularists do not automatically pursue mediocrity. Blaming mediocrity on secularism or political trends or parties or platforms we disagree with misses the point altogether I think. I wonder if mediocrity isn’t merely a reflection of general comfort with the status quo? Or the fear of losing that status quo? Psychologically, the fear of loss is a greater influence on choice and behavior than the hope of gain and so keeping what one has from loss is more a motivation than the ambition and hope of gaining more. Only those with courage, or nothing to lose (the desperate), are willing or eager to take chances that may threaten the status quo. Remember, it is not mediocrity but its glorification that is the danger to democracy. I think complacency and indolence and laziness and comfort with the status quo and the fear of its loss leads to the “glorification” of the status quo which leads to mediocrity. 132:3.3 Man tends to crystallize science, formulate philosophy, and dogmatize truth because he is mentally lazy in adjusting to the progressive struggles of living, while he is also terribly afraid of the unknown. Natural man is slow to initiate changes in his habits of thinking and in his techniques of living.
Many worthy thoughts and questions, Bradly. Agreed: Mixing Christianity and politics has to contribute to the most profound level of the mediocritization of Jesus and his message.
As for mediocrity’s origin, we appear to agree it’s roots go back to the animal propensity for the elimination of want, and nothing else. Mediocrity’s antithesis seems to be spirit, robust (thank you Mark) spirit.
And yes, it’s a good thing not to demonize mediocrity, as you infer, it’s glorification is the problem. Mediocrity is, apparently, a known and accepted step in evolution. But Urantia tripped and fell.
.
Richard E Warren
What conditions might support the diminuition of the pursuit of excellence and aspirational ideals?
Secularism, atheism, solipsism, selfish love, come first to mind… It’s hard not to equate/associate mediocrity with error/evil if not sin. It’s glorification involves going against the will of divinity. But is mediocrity’s glorification a conscious choice? Can we unchoose it? Maybe mediocrity is only a symptom, an effect of shallow choosing and lazy thinking. The root of the mediocre must be somewhere in human frailty. An animal can’t be or do anything mediocre, can it? Neither can it do anything majorocre (that should be a word)?
.I don’t think ambition, intelligence, creativity, insight, and inventiveness are limited to the religious and withheld from the secular/scientific/material pursuits of humanity or the individual. Are the unreligious or less religious mediocre? Hmmm… IMO, in my country (USA) the church going congregationalists and pulpiteers the past 3 decades have been the greatest danger to our democracy perhaps in its entire history…the moral majority is neither. Odd. Indeed, did religionists deliver democracy to our world? And how much scientific, material, economic, and other forms of secular progress has come despite the religious leaders and masses? And what of those who murdered Jesus? Weren’t they religious? This issue is more complicated I think. Religionists do not necessarily pursue excellence and secularists do not automatically pursue mediocrity. Blaming mediocrity on secularism or political trends or parties or platforms we disagree with misses the point altogether I think. I wonder if mediocrity isn’t merely a reflection of general comfort with the status quo? Or the fear of losing that status quo? Psychologically, the fear of loss is a greater influence on choice and behavior than the hope of gain and so keeping what one has from loss is more a motivation than the ambition and hope of gaining more. Only those with courage, or nothing to lose (the desperate), are willing or eager to take chances that may threaten the status quo. Remember, it is not mediocrity but its glorification that is the danger to democracy. I think complacency and indolence and laziness and comfort with the status quo and the fear of its loss leads to the “glorification” of the status quo which leads to mediocrity. 132:3.3 Man tends to crystallize science, formulate philosophy, and dogmatize truth because he is mentally lazy in adjusting to the progressive struggles of living, while he is also terribly afraid of the unknown. Natural man is slow to initiate changes in his habits of thinking and in his techniques of living.
Many worthy thoughts and questions, Bradly. Agreed: Mixing Christianity and politics has to contribute to the most profound level of the mediocritization of Jesus and his message.
As for mediocrity’s origin, we appear to agree it’s roots go back to the animal propensity for the elimination of want, and nothing else. Mediocrity’s antithesis seems to be spirit, robust (thank you Mark) spirit.
And yes, it’s a good thing not to demonize mediocrity, as you infer, it’s glorification is the problem. Mediocrity is, apparently, a known and accepted step in evolution. But Urantia tripped and fell. Somebody put bubble gum on it.
.
Richard E Warren
Mediocrity is, apparently, a known and accepted step in evolution.
How so?
Mediocrity is, apparently, a known and accepted step in evolution.
How so?
So maybe you’re thinking evolutionary worlds, and all democratic systems, don’t pass thru, or at least experience the consequences of, a mediocre phase? Seems inevitable. How not?
.
Richard E Warren
So maybe you’re thinking evolutionary worlds, and all democratic systems, don’t pass thru, or at least experience the consequences of, a mediocre phase?
I was asking for specifics since your statement was rather broad. You said that mediocrity is a known and accepted step in evolution. Evolution of what? Is there evidence that mediocrity a necessary step of evolution? What exactly do you mean? I don’t want to be like some who jump to conclusions as to meaning without clarifying first.
I was asking for specifics since your statement was rather broad.
It was.
You said that mediocrity is a known and accepted step in evolution. Evolution of what?
Civilizations.
Is there evidence that mediocrity a necessary step of evolution?
Well, when it is equated with evil/error. The two go hand in hand and are a distinction without a difference, no?
What exactly do you mean? I don’t want to be like some who jump to conclusions as to meaning without clarifying first.
That’s fair. I shouldn’t have made the assertion without qualification and clarification. Is it now clear?
.
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.
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.
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
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
