> [Platt]
> I argue for the superiority of a particular culture based on Pirsig's
> moral
> hierarchy, as he explained:
>
> "A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological
> values is an absolutely superior culture to one that does not, and a culture
> that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values is
> absolutely superior to one that does not. It is immoral to speak against a
> people because of the color of their skin, or any other genetic
> characteristic because these are not changeable and don't matter anyway.
>
> But it is not immoral to speak against a person because of his cultural
> characteristics if those cultural characteristics are-immoral. These are
>
> changeable and they do matter." (Lila, 24)
>
> {Ron}
> Because this is such an important issue, I'm going to beat this horse.
> Lets take this statement apart a little.
> Pirsig says that what defines high morals is the cultural support of
> intellectual value.
> Intellectual value amounts to individual opinion.
> Individual opinion
> Is shaped by cultural value.
> In effect what he is saying is that
> Superiority is based in individual opinion and the individuals' ability To
> express that opinion. Expression varies by culture. He says opinions should
> be based on what can be changed. This change is compliance with the
> individual opinion. Cultural superiority is only valid and relevant when
> holding other cultures to your Own cultures values and personal opinion.
>
> And you know what they say about opinions.
Would you agree that not all cultures allow an individual to freely express
his opinion and that in this regard some cultures are better than others?
Thanks.
Platt
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
