Chapter 67: Unfolding Democracy, the Fifth Dimension and Waking Plato to Save our World
Abstract: The political parties freely admit that they are self-seeking and biased and, I believe that greed/misallocations/manipulations are ruining our world through the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ and a better system is put forward. Democracy and voting is found to be a much deeper and complex relationship that can only be ‘anchored’ by assigning an absolute value, and without an absolute, factional fighting occurs at every level. Plato used the mathematics of concepts to derive the Republic, which is (possibly) part of the sixth dimension, and others, in the ‘flowering’ of Greek philosophy, derived mathematics and 2,500 years later the world is in danger of Armageddon because of the ineptitude of our political/governing-system. The voting system is deeply flawed by ignoring the logic/measurement duality and the necessity of defining an absolute and the compulsory voting system exacerbates this flaw. Using the mathematics of concepts, the lack of absolutes in our probability of existence universe makes Plato’s work relevant to today and modernizing it leads to a political system far superior to ours (which has brought us to the brink of Armageddon) and is (possibly) our only hope for a ‘soft landing’ for the planet. Everything that we measure has a logic (of Consciousness) coupled with it, that must be considered, and Plato’s idea of governing/ruling/managing (when modernized) produces a logical ‘completeness’ with no more complexity, little cost and huge advantages for the people, politicians and universities. Plato’s reputation may be decisive in having this system installed/accepted, before it is too late, and frees the modern political leader from responsibility and the constant danger of being ‘rolled’/replaced. An optimal political system reduces bias/rorting, improves the organizational/logical framework and gives control by applying logical aims supplied by those best suited to supply them within an overall absolute goal and produces an absolute of ‘virtue’ as the Churches used ‘love’ and knights, ‘chivalry’.
Allowing the use of biased/self-seeking political parties to form governments promotes/encourages greed and over-use of the planet’s resources, and whilst it is natural that common resources are over-used as their costs are often lower, the only sensible step is to reduce population, but it requires agreement as a first-step and the formality of the mathematics of concepts should allow agreement on many issues, as well as an absolute of ‘virtue’ and monitoring by philosophers as was suggested by Plato, 2500 years ago.
In the previous chapter (66), it was shown that we evolved a reality out of the possibility of existence and that no absolutes exist, which was Plato’s problem (defining an absolute justice etc.), and from chapter 63, ‘in the first book of the Republic (332-3). If good living is a skill or art, what is it the skill to do? There seems no way of specifying the skill as ”the skill to do x“ without making it also the skill to do the opposite of x’. (Greek Philosophers, R. M. Hare, p 127) In general, we assume that people’s wants are more important than their needs, and that assumption has brought our world to the verge of collapse from over-population, over-consumption etc. Politicians tend to pander to voters to try to given them their wants irrespective of the harm that is caused to (principally) the environment/commons, and are effectively, ‘buying’ their votes.
I, like most people assumed that democracy was ‘fair’ and that the majority should have a greater say than the minority, but with the knowledge that there are no absolutes available in our universe, how do we know if the majority view is ‘better’ than the minority view? Notice that mechanistic measuring and logical measuring both apply at the same time and the answer is, simply, that we don’t know which viewpoint is better/more-correct, and even worse, there is no way to decide unless we make a decision on what is to be an absolute and so the majority versus minority is only an illusion (of a physical measurement) of an absolute. Notice that this duality is only for our convenience/comprehension and it should be considered as two ‘faces’ of a probability space, see below. Even worse is the practice of forcing, under the threat of a fine, people that are not only uninformed, but also disinterested in the hope/view that having everyone vote will make the vote better/fairer. Perhaps forcing a high turnout by fining non-attendance is an attempt to boost the (apparent) legitimacy of the vote. It will be seen later that ancient Greek democracies used only concerned/participating male citizens in their voting/juries, and those not interested did not attend.
It is important to realize that the police system provides a reality by the threat of fining and locking-up offenders and the judicial system is based on the mathematics of concepts, and they are both based on the absolute of (written down) law. The political system is logically inept and even allows voters and politicians to have a say in how much they are paid out of the public purse. This ineptitude, lack of proper goals and an inadequate ‘stick’/force/control is, in my opinion, the basic reason that the world is experiencing global warming, overpopulation etc. and also why the world is experiencing the modern ‘diseases’ of lifestyle (cancer, heart disease etc.). Put simply, we need a political system that has reality, like the police that forces us to do the right thing, and a mathematics of concepts, like a judiciary, that enables us to define an absolute so that rightness/police/universities can guide us into it. Sadly our political system is a mess (and has placed the world in a mess), but I will show that we can impose a reality (through voters) and a goal (generalists/universities) on the politicians for everyone’s benefit.
To right these ineptitudes requires a re-thinking of the politicians’ role in a modern society and, in essence, I am going to ‘map’ the concepts of Plato’s time into the modern world using the attractors/concepts of the mathematics of concepts, but first we have to start somewhere, so, I’m going to show what is, I believe, wrong with present-day politics, and how they are based on flawed assumptions. I mentioned the voting system in chapters 22 and 47 and in the latter described how voting for Independents provided a Citizen Initiated Referendum which is particularly valuable, as the major parties are increasingly side-lined by being recognised as being manipulative and self-interested. The realization that there are no absolutes, changes the federal situation drastically and necessitates a re-think because we share the world, as in the case of the over-use of the ‘common’, and especially considering the antics of the political leaders over the last couple of years.
Traditionally, the Labour Party is supported by the trade unions whilst the Liberal/National party represents the self-employed/farmers, but is it time to modernize our view of party politics, especially with the realization that there are no absolutes and that that fact leads to factional fighting? Without absolute goals, it is inevitable that factions will fight for supremacy and as an example, Malcolm Turnbull told a Liberal Party meeting that there were no factions, no stress/favouritism on Big business and no back-room deals under his leadership, and there was general laughter. This can be taken many ways, whether in jest or naivety etc., and shows the need for a formal mathematics of concepts where a solution/statement cannot have ambiguities because ambiguities allow argument/discussion without agreement, and agreement is required for an absolute. I believe that the two-party system, that represents society today, and in the past, is no longer adequate and that our more complex society desperately needs a better system, if for no other reason that we are (literally) killing the planet with the present system.
We have to assign a goal, and that must be Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) because Survival of the Best (mathematics), that we have been using, has failed us as a guide/absolute, so, the answer, if there is one, lies in the mathematics of concepts and, particularly the realization that there are no absolutes unless we define them. Indeed, we have based our political system on ‘democracy’ as chosen by some Greek Cities nearly two thousand five hundred years ago, but then we let the idea ‘slip’ over time, and the time has come to re-appraise our political system. There is something very wrong with a system that changes leaders so often (I am referring to Rudd-Gillard-Rudd-Abbott-Turnbull), apart from the lack of a global logos. ‘No single English word corresponds neatly to logos (word/definition/account/reason/argument/rationality)’ (The Plato Reader, Tim Chappell, p x) and I am tempted to add the word ‘logic’ because they are all part of the fifth dimension.
‘During the Classical era of Ancient Greece many city-states had forms of government based on democracy, in which the free (non-slave), native (non-foreigner) adult male citizens of the city took a major and direct part in the management of the affairs of state, such as declaring war, voting supplies, dispatching diplomatic missions and ratifying treaties. These activities were often handled by a form of direct democracy, based on a popular assembly. Others, of judicial and official nature, were often handled by large juries, drawn from the citizen body.’ (Wikipedia, Greek democracy) Needless to say, this was not the (practically) universal voting that we see today and chapter 22 discusses the necessity of reducing the vote of those that receive government support and suggests a means of doing so. This is crucial because a proverb (a simple solution of the mathematics of concepts) says ‘if you derive a benefit, you can’t vote for it’, and anyone diagreeing with this would be openly ridiculed, except, apparently, in politics!
The Greeks of the time were very concerned about educating their young because absolutes had to be set by the parents in the way of morality etc., just as has to be done today. Socrates was ‘attacked by Aristophanes as a scientific enthusiast and a religious skeptic, and finally put to death by the restored democracy in 399 [BC] on the charge of corrupting the youth and blaspheming the gods.’ (The Republic, Plato, translated by A. D. Lindsay, p xvi) ‘Socrates in the Meno … whether a boy should be sent to the sophists in order to learn virtue, and Anytus exclaims against the idea, saying that any Athenian gentleman taken at random would do the boy more good. The argument of the Meno makes it clear that these were the only alternative methods of education…. the Republic is not only an account of the philosophic life; it is a treatise on education.’ (p xvii)
‘The philosopher is described as the saviour of society, and his main work in saving society is to turn all the powerful educative forces of public opinion and environment to the aid of virtue…. The anti-moral doctrines are put into the mouth of a sophist that we may realize that these are not only the opinions of an individual; they will be taught to the younger generation. The other side to this is seen in Book VI, 492, where Plato’s complaint against the sophists is not that they are subversive of ordinary opinions, but that they are not revolutionary enough. The sophists tell people what they wish to hear. They give public and emphatic expression to opinions already in the air.’ (p xvii) I would like to accentuate ‘and his main work in saving society is to turn all the powerful educative forces of public opinion and environment to the aid of virtue’ and say that this is what I am suggesting/promoting here.
The above should give enough attractors/concepts/quotations to enable us to make some observations. Firstly, as mentioned above, in a probability universe there are no absolutes and this proves that Plato’s works apply as much to us today as they did then, with a little modernizing. Secondly, the description of the sophists’ methods reminds me of the modern politicians’ methods of giving people what they want. To repeat ‘Plato’s complaint against the sophists is not that they are subversive of ordinary opinions, but that they are not revolutionary enough. The sophists tell people what they wish to hear.’ I can do nothing but agree and strongly suspect that this course of giving too much (an absolute) has led to the Armageddon that the planet is facing and has not protected the environment ‘properly’. The word ‘properly’ requires an absolute, not a politician’s ‘chipping’ away of the environment for self-interest.
Thirdly, from above, ‘the philosopher is described as the saviour of society’ is revealing because the Greek philosophers are teaching formal lessons about science, ethics etc. This is far from the two methods used at the time (above), and aligns well with modern universities, however, universities hold vast amounts of knowledge in a form that is difficult to use effectively in a day-to-day sense. Universities house specialists because specialists hold depth of knowledge and this book attempts to show why generalists are necessary to ‘over-arch’.
I need to digress because in the previous chapter (66), we discussed the Theory of Everything/Consciousness because the fifth dimension consists of ‘players’ acting out (logically, not interpersonally as discussed below) the future (on the ‘stage’ of space-time) and the over-arching ‘factor’ was Consciousness that (quite legitimately, I believe) can be viewed as a continuum from the Big Bang to the Big Blink. This ‘interlocking’ of concepts is logical because everything is linked and as you know more concepts your creativity increases, after all, the Mathematics of the Mind evolved using the mathematics of concepts, and the more concepts considered, the better the solution (usually). As soon as we bring a ‘generalist’ into the ‘over-arching’ of speciallities, we necessarily have to use the mathematics of concepts and ‘linkages’ appear between concepts, so, bear with me because concepts will ‘link’ together, and often in fundamental ways. This derivation/chapter is a prime example.
Consider the quotation: ‘today’s science and mathematics so far transcend the achievement of the Greeks that no modern scientist is likely to study Euclid, or Hippocrates or Archimedes for other than purely antiquarian reasons. Modern philosophers, by contrast, continue to discuss problems which were first raised some two thousand five hundred years ago, and they often do so in terms which their Greek predecessors would have found fully intelligible’. (Greek Philosophers, Keith Thomas, General Editor, Past Masters, Forward) Now mathematics is defined as an absolute, and is a subset of the mathematics of concepts, but can/should philosophy be defined as an absolute without context? By moving Plato’s work into a modern context, I am taking it from the antiquarian and making it part of the modern scene/context and making it useful/necessary to the determination of a better form of government. In other words, a concept must have a context and that context must change in/with the modern world (mathematics is designed not to change).
The quotation above needs a little more explanation, in that the mathematics of concepts that Plato used (mathematics had not been invented) in his writing was lost (or not consciously developed), presumably because mathematics produced such spectacular advances. Remembering that measurement and logic are a dualism (that I am using for convenience) and technology ‘blossomed’, but understanding lagged behind, as shown in chapter 2 where misunderstandings presented ‘problems’ as mathematics ventured into the (more logic) realms of relativity, gravity, force fields, ‘spooky action at a distance’ etc. where logic was necessary to understanding the processes. At the same time, mathematics is the exact part of, and a subset of the mathematics of concepts and produces measurement that led to technology and the lack of appreciation/control of the associated logic has led us into the world’s problems. This is a very important point because you can measure and not affect a system (except quantum mechanics), but applying logic is changing (Fittest to Best and) iteration to mind/brain and that has led to our world’s problems because we did not know how to control it. The dualism can be seen in the fifth dimension CEM (concepts/entanglement (a+b=1)/measurement (a,b)) arising out of probability space.
I have started formalizing the mathematics of concepts and consequently, bearing in mind that I don’t understand/know philosophy, I have modernized Plato’s work (on politics), in context, to ‘map’ it into the present day. I think that this shows that generalists have a very important role in translating the specialists’ work to benefit government/voters’ knowledge in the same way, in fact, the triumverate of specialist/government/voter is what this whole chapter is about.
Why did this ‘flowering’ of philosophy end? Was it ‘stunted’ by the spectacular rise in mathematics, or ‘in the fourth century [BC] the history of Greece is a record of petty struggles, constant intrigue, and universal faction.’ (The Republic, Plato, translated by A. D. Lindsay, p xv) This fighting/competition is still with us as manipulation is rife, from businesses wanting more customers, Churches more souls to save, governments more growth/employment etc., and where is it to end? Manipulation occurs because there is no agreed absolute and I believe that over-population is the basic cause that must be controlled.
The world needs leadership and Plato has left a legacy using the original mathematics of concepts and, being a general mathematics, it contains all solutions and answers, if we extend his work. The quotation of ‘universal faction’ epitomizes the state of the federal and state parliaments over the last few years and begs the question ‘are politicians the best people to make judgements on our behalf?’. We have mentioned that Plato is just as relevant today, so, let’s ‘wake’ Plato and try his suggestions to try to find a ‘best’ political system for ourselves and the world.
Is there any real difference between Plato’s time and our time? Firstly, today’s politicians are similar to the sophists in nature, and secondly, the cities were small and communication face-to-face, whereas today, the distances are large, but thanks to modern technology, we can be face-to-face. I believe that Plato’s ideas were ignored by leaders for their own ends because they wanted control and thus we find that little has (significantly/logically) changed. However, I have endeavoured to overcome this retention of power, see below, so, can Plato’s work be revived, with a little ‘modern organization’, and given a second chance?
‘If we are to understand the true principles of man’s conduct, we must try to discover what man’s specific function or purpose is, what he is meant by nature to do, and we must look for this, not in his selfish and individualistic actions, but in the actions in which he co-operates with other men.’ (The Republic, Plato, translated by A. D. Lindsay, p xxi) The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that we live in a probabilty of existence space, and I believe, that what we call energy and matter are two states (like water, ice, steam) of Consciousness and that we are a ‘logic machine’ (atom, molecule, life/breeding) that evolved because we could and are playing out a ‘logical’ future. We evolved a reality because it helps us compete/exist with less stress, but that reality has no absolutes and we must define absolutes in order to coexist with other people and we learn these within the family in the form of creation-myths/teaching.
Plato spent a lifetime studying these interpersonal relationships and they are valid today (with a little modernizing of context), so, from above, he imagined philosophers defining/refining the virtues of the populus through teaching the young through schools, as above, but the study of philosophy has itself suffered from the expansion of knowledge and the splitting into separate studies, so, I am suggesting, at its simplest, that each university (or federal government) employ, within the university, a generalist and that that generalist help ‘pull’ projects together, and that each generalist from each university be available to form a team that can advise/enlighten/gauge-the-worth of policies desired to be implemented by the government.
Whilst I believe that this book has shown the need for generalists, I am trying to replicate Plato’s time by amalgamating the (specific areas of) learning of modern universities into a ‘generalist’ which defines a mathematics of concepts and further, that generalists from all universities form a group to advise the government, again forming a mathematics of concepts and thus, in their agreement, an absolute. One small problem is that academics are definitely ‘left wing’ and their verdict might have to be a spread covering Labour/Liberal viewpoints so that voters can better judge the absolute in the light of the voters’ personal choice. I believe that this is the only way that universities can communicate usefully with the government and the voters in a modern world and whilst Plato believed that philosophers have the personality/knowledge to govern, the question is debatable. The personalities of politician and philosopher are completely different, but together they come closer to Plato’s ideal.
To restate the previous paragraph, politicians are similar in personality to the sophists, who were disliked by Plato, but philosophers can hardy be expected to like the ‘spotlight’, kissing babies etc., so, as we need both (defining an absolute), we separate them and leave them where they are most happy: the politician in the ‘limelight’ and the philosophers in the universities. The union of the two is, as Plato would approve, for the philosopher to tell the politician what to do, but, whilst this seems to be sensible, it is an unlikely outcome, as politicians like to have a ‘captain’s pick’, if they can get away with it, unless we ‘engineer’ otherwise.
From previously, using the ‘biocomputer’ method of tracing the multitude of iterations of multi-celled organisms, we proposed a placebo/nocebo continuum/contract between the cells and the mind/brain that could be called consciousness and that required that every cell send inputs to the mind/brain and every cell receives messages from the mind/brain. Organisationally, this simply means that every cell has to be in contact with, and be in contact from, the mind/brain and it is easy to see that Plato’s ‘choice’ is deficient in one ‘link’, and that is from philosophers to the general voters, however, this would have occurred, to some extent through the philosophers’ control of students’ knowledge and the ‘tightness’ of the Greek community.
To expand, the voters elect the politicians and the media tells the voters what the government is doing/planning through the news and the government receives polls through the media about the public’s perception of the government’s performance. Sounds good, but Plato wants the philosophers to control the politicians, and that can only be done if the philosophers present their ideas to the voters, and this can be done easily via the media. Now two cases occur, firstly, the government issues a policy, then the philosophers comment publically, which is reported to the voters and that affects the polls of voters, or secondly, the government sends the proposal to the philosophers, gets a reply and reappraises the proposal, changes the proposal until it gets sufficient support from the philosophers then announces the policy. The second is most likely/sensible, and that means that the philosophers are advising the government, which is what we want. Notice that an iteration is occurring with the philosophers providing an absolute, and taking the blame away from the politicians and turning them into statesmen/stateswomen with relevant/sensible policies. This appears to signal the demise of the political parties, which is good because they are factional, manipulative and divisive.
If each generalist/philosopher puts in a vote for ‘virtue’ using Labour/Liberal preferences, the media runs the total with the voters satisfaction (as they do now), the voters then have an absolute to be able to compare the government’s policy/performance. This is already being done to a limited extent because there are organizations that post opinions, but these do not make an ‘over-arching’ absolute that will slowly change as the philosophers (necessarily) express more/less concern for current policies. Also, I believe that it is crucial as a first step, that a simple model, using readily available data, be used to make a person’s vote represent that person’s ‘worth’ to society as was done in chapter 22 (and was done in Plato’s time).
We lost control 10,000 years ago when we used our mind/brain to over-ride Survival of the Fittest and the result is chaos, but chaos can be handled if we put limits on something (eg 0<a<1) and the mathematics of concepts gives a formal foundation for agreement from a group of philosophers. Philosophical problems such as limiting population, improving home-life to decrease mental problems, the ‘problem’ people should be encouraged to not have children by pension payments etc. The philosophers will revel in the solutions to these problems (I have already done some work on them and they are solvable) and that allows the politicians to become statesmen/stateswomen with policies that win votes and allow absolute choices that have been rated by the philosophers to take to their parties and constituents. Chapter 62 contains the Philosophy of Leadership and the best leader is, in my opinion, the one that is correct most often, and as the philosophers have (effective) responsibility for policy, that lessens the problems of political leaders being ‘rolled’.
The mathematics of concepts ‘contains’ both a measurement and a logic and the fundamental aim is that the planet can be saved, that the policies to do that, are academically based, and not based on pressure groups, that the pressure on politicians to perform ‘miracles’ is replaced by just being able to perform, the universities take their rightful place and responsibility in making policies, the generalist brings research ‘together’, the voters get what they need (not just want), and everyone seems better off, especially the environment. I think that Plato would be pleased to think that he saved the planet and not merely ‘society’ (p xvii)
I have heard that this century will be called ‘the Age of the Mind’, but as we have seen, the mind/brain, like (probably all of) the body will increase as we need/use it/them more (exercising muscles etc.) and as the mind/brain is based on the mathematics of concepts, which is part of the fifth dimension, it might be better to call it ‘the Age of Logic’ or the Second Coming/Chance. This is our chance to bring ‘everything’ together under a ‘control’ that works and this is our chance to define/act-out an interpersonal, international, environmental, technical etc. future and the key to this happening is politics stripped of its current biases/unfairnesses, using a logical base, as described above, that benefits everyone, including the planet, but not excessively.
The system that I have advocated seems simple, but it is based on a number of derivations and everything links together as one would expect from a good solution. Additional ‘points’ are that firstly, the mathematics of concepts ‘opens up’ mathematics into a general mathematics that contains solutions to everything, secondly, the concept of no absolute, and having to set an absolute is crucial and needs the best/Best people involved. The Churches are based on the absolute of ‘love’ and that idea took over most of the world, the knights had ‘chivalry’ as a code, and ‘virtue’ is a worthwhile aim. Thirdly, Plato used concepts to define a system/organization that could change something that was ‘killing’ the world to something could make it a paradise. Fourthly, the ‘vote’ is a measurement and a logic combined. A majority vote measures ‘opinion’ but not the logic of what is needed/necessary and the ‘proper’ absolute must be chosen and universities are the logical choice to define it, not a party room. Fifthly, very little change is needed to the political system because only the direction/concepts have been better aligned and the political parties that were designed to take advantage of the political/government/world situation have been made less important.
However, the mathematics of concepts is inter-linking and where to stop is arbitrary (we have changed a two-way into a three-way arrangement), also, an organizational change is a change/’flip’ of ‘state’ into the unknown using planning, capital, faith etc. Plato and I have tried, but as my friend Terry says, ‘until the Voters discover they can vote largesse from the public treasury, from that moment on, the majority always vote for the Candidate promising them the most benefits from the Public Treasury.’ All the derivation above is to try to stop that happening, and the prestige/reputation of Plato will not be enough unless we can find a statesman/stateswoman to implement it.
The Philosophy of Leadership is simply that the best leader is the one that is correct most often, and people will support someone that they can believe knows the best way, even if someone else does the ‘spruiking’. The ‘modern’ Churches are built around one word/absolute, namely, ‘love’ and Saint Peter widely spread the Word and that Word/absolute was all encompassing (love your enemy/neighbour etc.) whereas we are using the mathematics of concepts to seek solutions between concepts. Notice that the Churches ‘lost’ the Holy Spirit (their lack of a sensible/close relation to the environment is well known), whereas to be consistent they needed to love the environment (the original Holy Spirit, in my opinion, chapter 1).
‘Virtue’, I believe, demands care of the planet, and with this derivation, do we finally understand how everything works? The Theory of Everything/Consciousness could be considered the scenery/back-drop/players to the ‘play’ in the theatre of space-time and Plato’s (modernized) works could be interpreted as the interpersonal interaction/concepts between the players. The answer may be no! The interaction/dialogue ‘between the players’ may form a sixth dimension! We know that there are no absolutes, so the ‘space’ that ‘contains’ the dialogues must be continuous and the concepts exist, so that ‘space’ may be a reality/dimension. In other words, space-time is four, Consciousness is five and consciousness/creativity/communication may be six, but herd members follow a leader to food, so is a new dimension dependent on the ‘quality’ of the thought or do we widen the fifth?
The mathematics of concepts contains everything (because it is an iteration of ‘knowing’/measuring) and we mentioned that we required the government to possess reality and the mathematics of concepts like the police and judiciary, so talking about reality, I’ll give a simple reason why the political system must change using the concept of a biocomputer. A reality requires a steady state and 10,000 years ago we used the mind/brain to alter that state and the population grew and so we are not currently in a reality (steady state). Armageddon MUST occur to reduce the population and keep it stable, unless we change the political system to manage population. Remember that it is only technology keeping Malthus’s prediction at bay. The herd is Survival of the Fittest, the transition may be Survival of the Best (mathematics) and the sixth dimension might be Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts), then, Plato and the other philosophers might be working in a sixth dimension because, as above, they could still talk with each other.
Example: because this is so new/different/important, I thought that I would put in an example to show how effective this method can be in guiding/controlling governments through the reporting of government policies by the universities through the media to the voters with virtue as the aim. Most of the countries use the capitalist system with some degree of democracy because it is (probably) considered the most ‘efficient’, but using Plato’s idea of involving the universities as ‘policy generators’, turns a two-way into a three-way organization, and the ‘flip’ might happen (virtually) ‘over-night’. Countries could easily incorporate Plato’s idea because it is simple to install, (practically) costless and much more efficient and ‘steals a march’ on any country not using it.
Now, as above, there is a measurement (using Plato’s system) and the logic, which, in part, is the freedom to use it, so, I could say that all countries are welcome to use Plato’s system except Australia until they fix/make-morally-right the star-chamber that they have in the Department of Immigration (chapter 62). As a generalist, and the only one involved at the moment, I am attempting to tell voters that the Australian government is deficient and whilst they could use Plato’s system, as it is not patented (measurement), but morally should they use it if I do not allow them (logically) to do so? I am trying to stress the duality of measurement/logic and wonder if the Australian government would implement Plato’s system in spite of me withholding my approval until the star-chamber in Immigration is fixed? Would the media publicity and discussion damage the government that is attempting to bring ‘virtue’ into its system? Can one be virtuous and allow a star-chamber? This applies to human rights etc. and surely these are questions for universities to ponder/question, not political parties.
In conclusion, in watching our political leaders on television, I would be a lot happier if I knew that the policies that they are ‘pushing’ were rated/supplied by all the universities, not some political party room, and when I think that our world depends on this system, I despair.
darrylpenney 