Democracy's First Danger – Mediocrity

69 posts · 7 participants · started Jul 12, 2019, 9:07 AM

1. RE

   Richard E WarrenParticipant
   Jul 23, 2019, 8:37 AM

   Bonita wrote:

   Any ideal is ultimately unattainable. It is a goal towards which one constantly strives; the driving force behind progress. Excellence is such an ideal, because it is always possible to improve on even the truly brilliant. But mediocrity stands in stark contrast to this: it is a practical consequence, a finite point on an infinite spectrum. This has implications for its nature, as it occupies the ambiguous world between two extremes and so, in turn, is ambiguous itself – neither an outright failure nor a triumphant success, but often alluded to by both as an acceptable outcome.

   I think this is where it gets complicated. We’re told several times in TUB that the ideal is experienceable within the soul and it can be experienced now. Contrast that with the expression of the ideal in the outside world, which is a phenomenon not always achievable, especially in one single lifetime. I think it’s this outward manifestation of the ideal that Mr. van Onselen is referring to, especially when he states that it is a goal one is always striving towards. But I would qualify that by saying that the ideal is a goal that only progressing people are striving for. Stagnating goals are the hallmark of mediocrity, when striving ceases. And no wonder that so many who choose this path are unhappy. Ambiguity is essentially a stalemate in the willingness to chose one master or the other. Obviously trying to serve two masters is not possible, so the mediocre seem to favor choosing neither, which by default I think leads to the misery of humanistic materiality and herd mentality.

   103:5.8 It is fatal to man’s idealism when he is taught that all of his altruistic impulses are merely the development of his natural herd instincts.

   Incidentally, when it comes to human performance I loathe the word acceptable. What can be more mediocre than acceptable? Once I was told that my singing voice is acceptable. I was devastated. That was just one man’s opinion, thankfully. But it did inspire me to prove him wrong. I never worked so hard to not be acceptable.

   Ha! Good on ya. Sing on. In fact, let’s write a song, working title, ‘The Mediocre Homesick Blues, Acceptable ain’t respectable’.

   .

   .

   Richard E Warren

2. B

   BradlyParticipant
   Jul 23, 2019, 12:33 PM

   I would not agree that neither ideals or excellence can be achieved in experience or in expression.

    

   A bold declaration that does not fit my own or other mortals’ experience.  Indeed, the very striving for excellence IS excellence and its result is excellent.

    

   The subjective experience and expression of excellence is not dependent upon or relevant to any objective standard or measure.

    

   Perfection is no standard of excellence which lies somewhere between perfect and mediocre….and NOT in any particular or singular place.

    

   Saw a teenage girl with developmental handicaps compete on So You Think You Can Dance along with professionally trained aspiring dancers.  Such courage, effort, and execution of dedication to excellence.

   The girl’s performance was inspiring and excellent compared to superior performances which were mediocre.  Excellence is personal and relative.

    

   Someone is way off base here.

   "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."

3. B

   BonitaParticipant
   Jul 23, 2019, 2:03 PM

   And mediocrity is not ignorant of its own worth. It is self aware. It constantly suggests to those that would judge it that it occupies a position on that spectrum far closer to excellence than any objective consideration would grant it.

   Mr. van Onselen appears to be saying that people who label something as excellent which isn’t excellent by objective consideration, are doing so knowingly.  I think what he means is the self-delusional label mediocrity places upon itself is the label of being superior because of its inclusivity.  Everybody is excellent and no one is more excellent than any other, nor is anyone’s performance more excellent than any other because we’re all equal.  And when all are equal, all are mediocre.

   This point is critical when one is dealing with values and principles – the cornerstones of democratic philosophy. Each principle or value is underpinned by an ideal and as one moves from the theoretical to the practical so one should constantly aim to hold any outcome up against the ideal which underpins its undertaking.

   I think this statement is reflective of what we’re told in TUB that value is hidden within facts.  The facts being practical but with underlying value that must be discovered, recognized, interpreted and used to build a robust view of reality and hence a true life that can be acted out.  And since new meanings are perpetually being given to old facts, this is meant to be an ongoing venture, a never ceasing quest.

   One should relentlessly ask the question: what more can be done to move this particular outcome closer to the ideal that underlies it. Mediocrity circumvents this process by replacing the relevant ideal with the concept of the ‘acceptable’. That is, it constantly tries to reshape excellence in its own image. As such, mediocrity acts to change ones’ values, distorting any ability to evaluate excellence – for one is no longer striving to move towards the unattainable but in search of the real and the practical. And so the fear that defines the pursuit of the possible is replaced by the warm embrace of compromise and continuity.

   Those are a lot of words to describe the mediocre mind who stumbles upon a new meaning to an old fact, declares it to be acceptable, and then refuses to move on.  The refusal to move onto newer meanings is the distorting feature of mediocrity and according to Mr. van Onselen, it is caused by fear.  The new acceptable concept becomes forever superior and thus demands conformity.

   This emotional appeal is one of mediocrity’s greatest strengths: while the pursuit of an ideal involves risk and, in turn, the possibility of loss, mediocrity offers assurance and the comfort of knowing. In this way it seduces those with bold aspirations to let go of their dreams; indeed, not to dream at all.

   How sad this is, and it’s the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.  I’ve noticed that mediocrity’s only weapon is emotionalism, the appeal to either fear or self-satisfied superiority.  Neither of these have anything to do with what Jesus taught.  The reason why democracy and mediocrity are incompatible is because democracy values the individual and attempts to provide the freedom for the individual to aspire to become his highest dream.  Mediocrity destroys this by demanding conformity to the lowest common denominator of adequacy and acceptability, so everyone can feel special without actually doing anything special.

4. RE

   Richard E WarrenParticipant
   Jul 23, 2019, 4:08 PM

   Bonita wrote:

   And mediocrity is not ignorant of its own worth. It is self aware. It constantly suggests to those that would judge it that it occupies a position on that spectrum far closer to excellence than any objective consideration would grant it.

   Mr. van Onselen appears to be saying that people who label something as excellent which isn’t excellent by objective consideration, are doing so knowingly. I think what he means is the self-delusional label mediocrity places upon itself is the label of being superior because of its inclusivity. Everybody is excellent and no one is more excellent than any other, nor is anyone’s performance more excellent than any other because we’re all equal. And when all are equal, all are mediocre.

   This point is critical when one is dealing with values and principles – the cornerstones of democratic philosophy. Each principle or value is underpinned by an ideal and as one moves from the theoretical to the practical so one should constantly aim to hold any outcome up against the ideal which underpins its undertaking.

   I think this statement is reflective of what we’re told in TUB that value is hidden within facts. The facts being practical but with underlying value that must be discovered, recognized, interpreted and used to build a robust view of reality and hence a true life that can be acted out. And since new meanings are perpetually being given to old facts, this is meant to be an ongoing venture, a never ceasing quest.

   One should relentlessly ask the question: what more can be done to move this particular outcome closer to the ideal that underlies it. Mediocrity circumvents this process by replacing the relevant ideal with the concept of the ‘acceptable’. That is, it constantly tries to reshape excellence in its own image. As such, mediocrity acts to change ones’ values, distorting any ability to evaluate excellence – for one is no longer striving to move towards the unattainable but in search of the real and the practical. And so the fear that defines the pursuit of the possible is replaced by the warm embrace of compromise and continuity.

   Those are a lot of words to describe the mediocre mind who stumbles upon a new meaning to an old fact, declares it to be acceptable, and then refuses to move on. The refusal to move onto newer meanings is the distorting feature of mediocrity and according to Mr. van Onselen, it is caused by fear. The new acceptable concept becomes forever superior and thus demands conformity.

   This emotional appeal is one of mediocrity’s greatest strengths: while the pursuit of an ideal involves risk and, in turn, the possibility of loss, mediocrity offers assurance and the comfort of knowing. In this way it seduces those with bold aspirations to let go of their dreams; indeed, not to dream at all.

   How sad this is, and it’s the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. I’ve noticed that mediocrity’s only weapon is emotionalism, the appeal to either fear or self-satisfied superiority. Neither of these have anything to do with what Jesus taught. The reason why democracy and mediocrity are incompatible is because democracy values the individual and attempts to provide the freedom for the individual to aspire to become his highest dream. Mediocrity destroys this by demanding conformity to the lowest common denominator of adequacy and acceptability, so everyone can feel special without actually doing anything special.

   Pretty sad, all right.

   I find Onselen spot on. He is savage and relentless leaving no stone unturned. Except perhaps in attempts to personify mediocrity.

   …And mediocrity is not ignorant of its own worth. It is self aware. It constantly suggests to those that would judge it that it occupies a position on that spectrum far closer to excellence than any objective consideration would grant it.

   But that’s not a show-stopper for me. He nailed it I think, definition of relative terms, like excellence, notwithstanding.

   .

   Richard E Warren

5. B

   BonitaParticipant
   Jul 24, 2019, 12:28 PM

   And this is a humdinger.  Can’t think of another word.  The one that catches my eye is superficiality. It brings to mind one of my favorite phrases in TUB,  ” . . .  the superficial frothiness of the religious egotist.” (196:0.8)    I also agree adamantly that moral indignation is mediocrity’s calling card.  The mediocre put themselves upon the highest pedestal with hopes their moral indignation will make them untouchable, while at the same time perhaps draw a few admirers.  Who can resist moral outrage?  Me too, me too!

   To understand mediocrity’s true disposition, one must be able to recognise its defining traits. They are as follows: apathy; indifference; doubt; pervasiveness; insecurity; superficiality; vagueness; fear; timidity; denial; compromise; laziness; inertia; arbitrariness; obstinacy; moral indignation; pettiness; jealously; stubbornness and neediness.

   Here’s another instance when Onselen personifies mediocrity. I think it’s clever that he personifies mediocrity because it becomes impersonal and therefore his readers can’t take offense because obviously he isn’t referring to them, he’s writing about this entity named mediocrity, whoever that could be.

   Mediocrity panics when placed under pressure; for it knows it is being dishonest.

   Then he goes on to explain how mediocrity tries to cover up its dishonesty by detaching itself in a feigned calmness, just smile and carry on.

   But rather than engage with any immediate expectation of it, and the work and effort that necessitates, it will simply detach. In abandoning responsibility in this way it is able to stay calm. 

   This statement cracks me up. Do you remember Bagdad Bob during the Iraq War?  I see the same look on the face of a certain House politician from time to time, no names mentioned.  It’s easily recognizable, at least to me.  A knee slapper every time.

   One will never see mediocrity appear to be under stress, apprehensive, anxious or exhausted. To the casual observer mediocrity is mono-emotional, and there is nothing more disconcerting than its smile – feigning to assure, but assuring only doubt.

    

6. RE

   Richard E WarrenParticipant
   Jul 26, 2019, 8:13 AM

   It can’t hurt to know what mediocrity is NOT. Looking at its antonyms, excellence comes up most often. But I think a better antonym, one that doesn’t come up in the dictionary is sublime.

   Sublime: exalted, elevated, noble, lofty, awe-inspiring, awesome, majestic, magnificent, imposing, glorious, supreme; grand, great, outstanding, excellent, first-rate, first-class, superb, perfect, ideal, wonderful, marvelous, splendid, delightful, blissful, rapturous.

   Another antonymic word for the mediocre is nobility:

   Noble: excellent, splendid, marvelous, magnificent, superb, fine, wonderful, exceptional, formidable, sublime, prime, first-class, first-rate, high-grade, grade A, superior, supreme, flawless, choice, select, finest, superlative, model.

   Mediocre: ordinary, common, commonplace, indifferent, average, middle-of-the-road, middling, medium, moderate, everyday, workaday, tolerable, passable, adequate, fair; inferior, second-rate, uninspired, undistinguished, unexceptional, unexciting, unremarkable, run-of-the-mill, not very good, pedestrian, prosaic, lackluster, forgettable, amateur, amateurish.

   Mark suggested robust is an antonym, here’s it’s meaning:

   Robust: strong, vigorous, sturdy, tough, powerful, powerfully built, solidly built, muscular, sinewy, rugged, hardy, strapping, brawny, burly, husky; healthy, fit…

   .

   Richard E Warren

7. MK

   Mark KurtzParticipant
   Jul 27, 2019, 12:09 AM

   Rick, I like the word robust as a guide for living better, trying harder, thinking better, you name them all, for moving more toward Jesus’ life model. He was spiritually robust, active, and loyal without fail. He counseled the depressed youth; told another to get up off the ground if someone knocks someone to the ground. Don’t grovel there; stand up on your feet and try to save your brother. There are many examples from his life that add new definition of robust.

   Its too easy to get down, depressed a bit, even sad, but Jesus asks us to become robust, to attack life confidently, cheerfully and show a good example for others.

    

   Jesus is a better definition of robust. We can live his ever widening robust influence on the world! That world can be as large as one’s capability and talents!

   Mediocrity is in the line of hurdles for any spiritual runner on the “track of life”.

    

8. B

   BonitaParticipant
   Jul 27, 2019, 12:19 PM

   Mark Kurtz wrote:

   Mediocrity is in the line of hurdles for any spiritual runner on the “track of life”.

   I like that!

   I remember reading that Jesus had an aggressive temperament.  I’d never considered the word aggressive in such a positive light before.  And Jesus taught his followers to react aggressively positive to every life situation.  I’m not sure what that means exactly, but I’m sure it qualifies as robust.

   127:1.3 This physically strong and robust youth also acquired the full growth of his human intellect, not the full experience of human thinking but the fullness of capacity for such intellectual development. He possessed a healthy and well-proportioned body, a keen and analytical mind, a kind and sympathetic disposition, a somewhat fluctuating but aggressive temperament, all of which were becoming organized into a strong, striking, and attractive personality.

   159:5.9  Jesus required his followers to react positively and aggressively to every life situation. The turning of the other cheek, or whatever act that may typify, demands initiative, necessitates vigorous, active, and courageous expression of the believer’s personality.

    

    

9. MK

   Mark KurtzParticipant
   Jul 27, 2019, 12:55 PM

   Bonita, I never thought much about mediocre or ever thought much about how to avoid such a state, but Rick, you and others have opened my mind about improvement—how I COULD become! Its an adventure in how to overcome concepts that drag me down! We all have hurdles!

   The world needs leaders who know what is good for people, what is in harmony with God! We don’t need average, mediocre people who want stability, as you and others have so wisely judged. If we are to add something good to the world we will need pals working in ideal teamwork, just as we find life now! We will get to the divine ideals in time!

Reply on the current forum