By: John Vore

John Vore — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:08:19 +0000

Regardless of Chinese history, there is ample American history–especially from the 18th century, resurrected in the late 20th century–from Garry Wills and Gordon S. Wood–which shows how American Founders attempted to enunciate values (“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”) and a framework which allowed those to combine in individuals, as they might. Without getting into a side-track about the imperfections and mistakes made 200+ years ago (which the Founders acknowledged by inclusion of an amendment process)–the key, for this posting is, I think: what does it take to create a context in which a multitude of conflicting values are not merely allowed to clash freely, but to co-exist and grow? I think of it as the difference between wanting to design a greenhouse and choosing what to grow in it. Unlike what is found in a New York Times article this past week, they knew that if America were an official “Christian” nation, when people became dissatisfied with, say, an industry bail-out–it would also dissuade them from believing in God. So they tried to work out a way in which the mistakes of men didn’t interfere with religion. Today, some tend to have it all turned around, thinking religion will save government–or America. Yet making government depend on a particular set of values–as opposed to a set of meta-values–would be a sign of its final internal combustion. It would signal a loss of the old idea that my advocating your freedom, in an unending wave across the land–is what guarantees it, as it spreads like a benign contagion from one person to another, each a witness and a recipient of a good idea: that neither of us has to be right about our individual values. What we share is our deeper belief in the meta-value. We come together in the greenhouse, and plant what we each want–yet we never forget the necessity of letting go our differences when it comes to protecting that greenhouse.

It comes down to designing a system in which you and the person who’s ideas you cannot stand, still, get along–still respect each others’ path.

(Apologies for “greenhouse”–an analogy so over-used in a different context.)

By: Rafe Furst

Rafe Furst — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:00:06 +0000

@John, there is nothing new under the sun. Guess you have never practiced Zen with an emphasis on non-judgment ;-)

By: John Dziki

John Dziki — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:01:02 +0000

Interesting but, not at all creative or new. Guess you have never studied Chinese history with an emphasis on Confucianism.

By: Alex Golubev

Alex Golubev — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:00:25 +0000

very interesting. i have to sit on this one for a while. first thoughts though – principle 4 seems to be one that could and should become a focus for the US policy makers. good stuff.

By: Michael Strong

Michael Strong — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:42:59 +0000

Wonderful approach, much appreciated, thank you.

Michael

By: Government Proposal: Valuestan « Let A Thousand Nations Bloom

Government Proposal: Valuestan « Let A Thousand Nations Bloom — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:13:10 +0000