-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Platt Holden Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Gauntlet II !
Ron: (Arlo mentioned) > [Ian] > > I think I agree with that entirely Platt, if I could just confirm one > word > > ... > > > > In the second para where you say - cultural immune system "of" ... > > Are you referring to academes immunity defence system "against" ... > > > > .... relativity and mulicuturalism ? > Platt: > No. Academe not only embraces moral relativity and multiculturalism, but > > celebrates it with a passion. To the professorship, no culture can do > anything wrong, nor do we have any right to judge other cultures > (America > excepted). That's what our kids are being taught.The MOQ tells quite a > different story. "Cultures can be graded and judged morally according to > > their contribution to the evolution of life." (Lila, 24) To academe, > that's > blasphemy. > > Ron: > That seems to contradict Pirsigs reasons why he could not make an > accurate assessment of Indian culture and values. In MoQ terms "Moral" > is described as Dynamic. by THAT meaning one may compare the dynamism > between cultures > but in no way can cultures be judged in a particular social (collective) > meaning of the term as you imply. It would not only be unfair but > irrational and unreasonable. > > it would go against everything Pirsig has been trying to defeat. [Platt] Hardly. In Pirsig's own words: "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) Unlike Arlo and his fellow multiculturalists who think backward, impoverished and murderous cultures are equal to American culture, Pirsig says some cultures are better than others, judged by their dominant moral values. I agree. Ron: That's exactly what I stated Platt, we may compare them by their dynamism which is what Pirsig is positing in that statement. Making a statement in MoQ that U.S. culture is more dynamic than Islamic cultures is a true MoQ statement. Some cultures are more DYNAMIC than others. But when you drag specific cultural values into the equation and judge cultures based on those particular cultural values you fall into social fallacy. Once you cease using intellectual standards of comparison Platt you fall to Social level assumptions to base value judgments. Arguments against multiculturalism are social level arguments. It has no base in intellectual patterns and I doubt you can make an intellectual appeal against it. you are supplying lo quality intellectual patterns in arguments against multi-culturalism although they are chocked full of static social level reason to support it. It is more moral to say that U.S. culture is more dynamic than Islamic culture than to say "backward, impoverished and murderous cultures are inferior to American culture." Which makes you sound like a collectivist social level cultural elitist rather than an intellectual individual who makes value judgments from experience. 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/
