/A It sounds like what you mean by 'social relativism' is a culture being socially oriented rather than intellectually oriented? I was looking for your definition, which I don't think is clear yet.
As far as the World mess: I think it will stay a mess until the subject/ object point-of-view is transcended. Having said that, within the MoQ intellectual patterns are a higher value than social patterns. As far as your statements about who has got the moral high ground, I could argue with your comments, but I will pass. I've given up my political soap box. Marsha On Oct 28, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Alexander Jarnroth wrote: > Marsha > > I think many people in "The West", at least here, seem to have given up the > idea of intellectual supremacy and accepted the notion of just "social > supremacy". By doing so, I believe, they have also lost their intellectual > supremacy. What they should have done, was to have faith in their > intellectual supremacy and fight only at that level, with words rather than > weapons. Then I think the populations of Muslim countries by themselves > would embrace the principle of intellectual supremacy over social patterns. > When Europe conquered Muslim countries originally it wasn't, of course, > because of any intellectual supremacy. They did it for the same reason that > people from Muslim countries now migrates to Europe. That reason was: at the > time the demographic growth in Europe was much larger than in the rest of > the world: not the same is true of Muslim countries. These migration > patterns, then, would have the biological "the right of the strongest" kind > of moral, just as the colonialism had, and would then just be a biological > pattern, having nothing much to do with neither social nor intellectual > patterns. > > One reason this question is so much discussed here in Sweden right now, is > that a nationalistic party has taken seats in the parliament. I, and many > others, doesn't really like them. But I think that they criticize these > "nationalist" at the wrong basis: that is from the social relativist point > of view. What these nationalists want to stop all migration from > non-European countries and that we should try to save "Swedish culture" from > the "threat of Islamism". > I know people from both sides of this conflict and I think that they both > are right in different ways. MoQ gives a way to overcome that "cleft". > The situation is kind of the same with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. > Israel, being morally superior, should neither fight with the "right of the > strongest" nor with any kind of "social patterns" against the Hamas, > Hezbollah or Iran. What they OUGHT to do is showing by example the supremacy > of intellect over social values. Then, I think, the populations of > Palestine, Lebanon and Iran would be strengthen against their governments or > "pseudo-governments". This is actually a particular case when I thing the > MoQ has improved my understanding greatly. > Both sides are doing the wrong thing, but for different reasons and from > different perspectives. > > /A > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MarshaV > Sent: den 28 oktober 2010 12:38 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value > > > /A, > > I agree that a cultural relativism that determines all perspectives have > equal value is ridiculous, but that is an exaggerated point-of-view. > > Seems to me the MoQ judges a culture based on patterns, and there is always > a mix of social and intellectual patterns within a culture. I imagine Islam > is a mix of social and intellectual patterns just like Western cultures. > > And why do you think the West has invaded and is occupying the Middle East? > For some intellectual principle? If you think the sole reason for the > conflict in the MiddleEast is "Islamists are fighting for the social systems > supremacy over intellect" you might check your > own biases. Seems the U.S. killed some budding democracies > when it suited their purposes, and those purposes were not > intellectual. > > imho > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Alexander Jarnroth wrote: > >> In the way I perceive it, it says that any culture is as good as any > other. >> Every pattern of society should be considered a social construction. >> I've been arguing a lot with people terming themselves > "deconstructionists" >> because they want to free people from social constraints. But to me, >> the opposite of construct is destruct. To me the social relativists >> are the precursors of these destructionists. In Sweden we have this >> debate concerning Muslims and Jews. Those on the Muslim side call the >> others "islamophobs" and those on the Jewish side, call the others > "antisemitists". >> Those on the Muslim side, says the it's just "social chauvinism" to >> say that a state based on democratic principles which propose human >> rights and so on, is better than a Islamic state proposing rule by >> Sharia. That's social relativism to them Human rights, democracy and >> the such, to them, is just a social construct. >> These "deconstructionists" on the other hand, seem just to hate >> everything in society. In Sweden they are left wing, and they love to >> use violence and vandalism against almost anything. They try to induce >> some kind of social uprising and the destruction of the state. >> >> From my former stance, however, I couldn't really debate them. Of >> course I could say to the deconstructionists, that without a state, >> most people living today would die, because they are materially dependent > on the system. >> But what could I say to the social relativist? >> To me it doesn't matter if you celebrate Christmas, Pesach or Eid >> al-Fitr - in that case I could be "relativist". But what concerns the >> freedom of speech and such things, I can't even try to grasp it. I can >> try to "understand" how people living in other systems think, but I >> wouldn't like to call them "as right" as anyone else. >> Take, for instance, the speech made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Lebanon >> recently. You could take any mentions of "God" and replace it with > "the/our" >> social system, and it would still make perfect sense - it would make >> even more sense. >> Seen through the MoQ, these Islamists are fighting for the social >> systems supremacy over intellect - but according to MoQ it should be >> the other way around. >> Suddenly I have an argument against these relativist, who claims that >> it doesn't really matter. That freedom of speech and the such are just >> social patterns, as good as any other. >> >> /A >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MarshaV >> Sent: den 28 oktober 2010 11:44 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value >> >> >> /A, >> >> What is your definition of social relativism? >> >> >> Marsha >> > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
