For a long time, for instance, classical Athens distributed its most responsible public positions by lottery: army generalships, water supply, everything. The implications are awesome— trust in everyone’s competence was assumed; it was their version of universal driving. Professionals existed but did not make key decisions; they were only technicians, never well regarded because prevailing opinion held that technicians had enslaved their own minds. Anyone worthy of citizenship was expected to be able to think clearly and to welcome great responsibility.
Very similar to Robert Heinlein’s quote:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
Also reminds me of certain early gnostic communities where the position of priest or bishop was a temporary assignment through lottery, available to all men and women. I think that’s in Elaine Pagels Gnostic Gospel, but I’d have to go back and track down the source.
Another nice bit from that same Gatto page:
The idea of schooling free men in anything would have revolted Athenians. Forced training was for slaves. Among free men, learning was self-discipline, not the gift of experts.
His description of Plato’s Academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum is also worth checking out.
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- REPERMANENT [Sci-Fi Novel] 10
- REPERMANENT [Sci-Fi Novel] 11
- Cybele
- REPERMANENT [Sci-Fi Novel] 05
- REPERMANENT [Sci-Fi Novel] 03
6 Comments
This tidbit reminds me of Arthur Clarke’s Imperial Earth. Its a small, passing mention in the book but while the main character is on Earth he learns that all political officials on Earth are chosen at random and serve limited terms. Goverment office was a civic duty like being a juror. I think he made the point that anyone who desires political power is completely unqualified to hold office. Tom Robbins makes a similar point in his work too.
In Gulliver’s Travels, the public officials of the Lilliputians are chosen for their prowess in juggling, unicycle riding, etc. Gulliver wonders why they are chosen for qualities utterly unrelated to governing
that gnostic thing is in the gnostic gospels, but i think it’s based on something from . . . i wanna say tertullian? maybe hippolytus?
funny thing, that quote– basically describes what used to be called a ‘renaissance man.’ i think the last one was probably goethe, who could repair carriages as well as churn out treatises on evolution & epic poems.
funny, too, that this is what life in a democracy asks of each citizen. to make informed votes, one must be an economist, a political philosopher, an agronomist, a foreign relations expert, a military scientist, etc. etc. etc. yet such a thing was impossible even for the athenians in a few city-states, let alone for our giant nation. imho, it’s one of the big failings of democracy– the ‘political illusion’ indeed.
Im away from my bookshelf, but I felt like chipping in about this curious suggestion
with regards to the Gnostic’s (sui generis, which is _seldom_ helpful at all, I am _not_ a fan of the simplified generalising trend found in Pagels blockbuster The Gnostic Gospels)
celebrant-by-lot.. First of all, the only place this is suggested is in the first book of Ireneaus of Lyons Adversus Haereses - so even among the Churchfathers polemical records about one or another kind, it is scarce to substantiate that it was a general practise, much less general attitude. But what is important is that Ireneaus make mention of the casting of lots in a very specific context - that of the _Nymphon_ or “Bridal Chamber”, apparently a living initiatory or sacramental ritual at that time - as practised by the followers of Marcus, the Valentinian “thaumaturge”, in Ireneaus own neck of the woods, Gaul (ancient northern france, in fact). While he (Ireneaus) does make mention that the actual sanctification of the Eucharist practise of the Marcosians is done in proxy for Charis (grace) by a randomly chosen female disciple
- the liturgy is held as within the Church, with the exception that by then all openly practising followers of Marcus or Valentinus are formally outside the Church.
The business of casting lots _does_ effectively “make the statement” that each are as valid,worthy and effective a contributor to the mystery (you will find that even in the otherwise expressively elitist scripture Pistis Sophia), the only source, literary and in history - gives a specific context which makes it a local phenomenon, both in the specific gnostic school and that it is the final sacrament which is the “bridal chamber” of union with one’s Angel, one’s Holy Spirit. This same situation we also find with the first generations of Cathars in Southern France, prior to the Cathar Council initiated by the Byzantine Bishop, Pop Niketas: the reception of the Consolamentum, consolation with ones Holy Spirit (ideal Spirit or eidolon) and reception of the Resurrection Body - qualified _each_ recipient to be a consecrator for all. As with the followers of Marcus, a millenium prior to that, this “final rite”, a divorce from former life and the world, and final confrontation with the great Daemon Death - and reconciliation, union and entry into Divine Life, was a communal event - referring perhaps to Paul (an _important_ contributor to the Cathar Legacy from the euchites/messalians contemporary to the Churchfather Epiphanius to the Cathar Church in France, with regards to anthropology, eschatology, soteriology and even appreciation of the two “orders” to being, be they “ages” or “worlds”: after receiving the Consolamentum) in the Colossians, wherean he insist that there is neither man nor woman,slave or free men, Jew,Greek,Phoenician etc. in the Holy Spirit.
One can imagine the reaction this would elicit from the architechts of the emergent Catholic Church. What arrogance indeed! Gnosis is Eleutherian, setting free - not egalitarian, presupposing an already existing “natural equality”.
Thanks Terje - it was sort of just an off-the-cuff reference on my part, so I appreciate having it fleshed out into a fuller context!
that reminds me of the scene in fight club right before brad pitt wrecks the car. he ask the two guys in the back what they will wish they would have done before they died and the one guy says “build a house” and the other guy says “paint a self portrait.”