Mel, The arguement seems to be one of clarity. While Platt argues against cultural relativism, Dmb and myself make an arguement for multicultralism. While we agree with Platt that cultural relativism inhibits a society, we disagree that the term multiculturalism is synonomous. As Dave pointed out, often cultural relativism is used to paint multiculturalism to support a closed door policy toward ethnic tolerance.Unfortunately this fosters a justification for cultural superiority. While ethnic tolerance is moraly relativistic, multiculturalism ensures that all members, regardless of ethnic backround, agree to adhere to the same social laws (morals) governing them equally. We see this as breaking cultural barriers in a intellectually dynamic way, making it superior to societies who adhere to a more static monocultural policy of ethnic intolerance. Platt had ageed with me until I pointed out that this conflicted with his stance on ethnic intolerance. Platt is perfectly within his right to find the cultural practices of others as moraly offensive he is not within his right to justify ethnic cleansing under the guise of cultural supremacy as what I took his Pirsig quote to mean to imply.
"It´s a war of biological blacks and biological whites against social blacks and social whites. Genetic patterns just confuse the matter. And this is a war in which intellect, to end the paralysis of society has to know whose side it is on, and support that side and never undercut it. Where biological values are undermining social values intellectuals must identify social behavior, not matter its ethnic connection, and support it all the way without restraint. Intellectuals must find biological behavior, no matter what its ethnic connection, and limit or destroy destructive biological patterns with complete moral ruthlessness., the way a doctor destroys germs, before those biological patterns destroy civilization itself. (Lila, 24) What Pirsig does say here is that social patterns must be upheld no matter the ethnic origin unless those patterns are biologically destructive. Multiculturalism is such a position. A position which upholds ethnic social patterns while limiting or destroying destructive biological patterns. -Ron ________________________________ From: ml <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2009 8:15:05 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Multiculturalism scam Platt/ dmb/ Ron/ all: I find it interesting that I read these two posts and find that they are not always antagonistic. In fact they seem to raise a question as they work to define a previously unseen shape, a question. What are the limits of multi-culturalism inside a single society? (at what point does it weaken a society, at what point does it strengthen one? --in MOQ terms) thanks--mel -------------------- Platt said: Multiculturism is based on the postmodern idea that all cultures are morally equal, i.e, that they are neither "good nor bad," "right or wrong." This idea is challenged by the MOQ. "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 " So a democratic republic that protects individual rights to free speech, private property, trial by jury, etc. is superior to a Stalinist regime that requires individuals to support the dictates of a communist state under penalty of imprisonment or death. I make no apology for my bias towards a culture of democracy as opposed to a culture of totalitarianism. -------------------- 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/
