On 3 Jun 2009 at 7:12, X Acto wrote:
> > Platt,
> > To view things as a baby and how Pirsig mentions, is to drop the stereotypes
> > we hold and take a fresh new look. Like looking at the positives of
> > socialism
> > communism and capitalism and combine them to create a society that actually
> > DOES value the individual, valuing individuals other than YOURSELF is
> > socialism you know.
> Platt:
> What are the positives of socialism and communism? Is making other
> individuals dependent on government for their welfare your idea of
> "valuing" them?
>
> Ron:
> No, and thats not the goal of either nor is it of capitalism. the Goal of all
> is the
> individual dedication to social Quality.
Platt:
The goal of capitalism is sustain a free market and protect private
property in the the pursuit of profits. Social Quality is the benefit, not the
goal. (See Pirsig's comparison of capitalism vs. socialism.)
Ron:
For what purpose does Capitalism seek to:
"sustain a free market and protect private
property in the the pursuit of profits"
> Ron prev:
> > That is why I have a hard time understanding your dichotomy
> > of value of the individual in society yet despise anything that has to do
> > with it
> > . You exalt the diversity of individuals yet despise multiculturalism
> > when what you really despise is moral relativism,
>
> Platt:
> Just in case you've forgotten, here's what Pirsig had to say about
> multiculturism which demands we value all cultures equally:
>
> "Cultures can be graded and judged morally according to their
> contribution to the evolution of life." (Lila, 24)
>
> Ron:
> In case you have forgotten that is cultual relativism NOT multicultualism.
> And Pirsig makes my point.
Platt:
Where does Pirsig make your point? (What is your point anyway?) As
for the meaning of "multiculturism," this from Wikipedia:
"I this context, multiculturalism advocates a society that extends
equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups, with no
identifiable ethnical and/or religious culture treated as a single norm to
which everyone has to adhere to."
Note the phrase, "equitable status."
Ron:
You forgot to add :
Some countries have official, or de jure policies of multiculturalism aimed at
recognizing and allowing members of distinct groups within that society to
celebrate and maintain their different cultures or cultural identities as a way
to promote social cohesion
"In this context, multiculturalism advocates a society that extends
equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups, with no
identifiable ethnical and/or religious culture treated as a single norm to
which everyone has to adhere to."
Also note that the definition states that multicultualism treats INDIVIDUALS
EQUALLY regardlesss of culture, religion or ethnicity and allows for the
celebration
of cultural diversity NOT that all cultures are equal, rather all individuals
HAVE
THE RIGHT to express their INDIVIDIALITY.
> Ron prev:
> > Pirsig gives us
> > a way to make moral judgments without the typical stereotypes
> > that hinder us from making Quality judgments or the paralysis
> > of relativism.
>
> Platt:
> Agree.
>
> Ron:
> Then whats with all the fuss about multiculturalism?
Platt:
Multiculturism demands just the opposite.
Ron:
Multiculturalism demands the right of the individual to express their
ethnic,religious and cultural diveristy within the bounds of an equal system of
justice.
which differs from what you are talking about which is:
Cultural Relativism: All Truth Is Local
Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from
culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better”
than any other. This is based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of
good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society.
Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural
perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical
system can be considered the “best,” or “worst,” and no particular moral or
ethical position can actually be considered “right” or “wrong.”
The contradiction of cultural relativism becomes immediately apparent. A
society that embraces the notion that there is no ultimate “right” or “wrong”
loses the ability to make any judgments at all. The way in which relativism,
including cultural relativism, has permeated modern society is demonstrated in
the bizarre ways in which we try to deal with this contradiction. “Tolerance”
has mutated to imply unconditional support and agreement for all opinions or
lifestyles. However, those who choose to be “intolerant” are not to be
supported or agreed with. Tolerance, therefore, becomes an “ultimate good” in
and of itself, which is contradictory to the entire idea of relativism. In the
same way, heinous crimes such as rape and murder demand a moral judgment -- but
strict cultural relativism cannot say that such things are always wrong.
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/
