Alex,
Thanks for correcting my incorrect shorthand. Yes, the MoQ is an excellent system because it emphasizes the the betterness of intellect over social judgements, and better yet because it points beyond both to reality = value. I agree that any type of relativism that determines all perspectives have equal value is not good, but such an argument is an exaggeration. Marsha On Oct 28, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Alexander Jarnroth wrote: > Marsha > > If you would like a kind of exact definition, I'm not sure I can give it. > I'm just trying to relate some of the opinions held by those calling > themselves social relativists, that I have met. > But I could try to define it as "the view that every pattern found within > any civilization can't be said to somehow be better than any other such > pattern". > And then I could add: in my view they don't make any distinction between > social and intellectual. > > /A > > (as a parenthesis: that slash before the A just means "signed" and the A is > the initial of my first name) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MarshaV > Sent: den 28 oktober 2010 14:24 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value > > > /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 > > 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
