From: dcroz@twics.co.jp
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Brainwashed
Date: 3 Jan 93 21:54:25 GMT
Organization: TWICS, Tokyo, Japan


Yoichi Ii writes:
 
=}Well, so what did he say? :-)
 
     Don't let's be silly, Alphonse.  Read the book if you have any real
interest in the subject.
 
=}I meant "problem" in a sense that things that need to be solved before one
=}can start rank order cultures.
 
     The thread to which you replied was a discussion of whether it could ever
be possible to determine good from evil, right from wrong, preferable from less
so, better from worse.  If you're already agreeing that this is possible, then
you've jumped in on the wrong side of the discussion.
 
=}I think you misunderstood me.  I did not say "everything is relative". 
=}Someone else did.
 
     Well, yes, that was what we were discussing.  You came in on that side of
the discussion, so I thought. . .
 
=}As I wrote below, I do not exclude the possibility of the "good".
 
     Ah, good:  you're agreed that it is possible to determine whether one
culture is better than another.  Then it only remains to decide what standards
can validly be applied.
 
=}I didn't say this either.  Either someonelse posted it or you're recreating
=}conversation from some other time.
 
     It was the subject of discussion.  In posting a counter to my arguments
regarding this subject, you made it appear that you wished to argue the
contrary position.
 
=}Are you conceding that there might be factors other than human nature that
=}dictate culture?
 
     Oh, I don't know.  In this particular instance, I was arguing that it
might be desirable to use culture to limit the expression of human nature's
more violent aspects.
 
=}Sorry, I don't get this one.
 
     Intended as an example of how human nature might limit our individual
rights.
 
=}I include myself in "people".
 
     I said, "other peoples' capacities," and it still looks that way to me.  I
don't know whether you are capable of transcending this alleged "natural
tendency" to believe that one's own culture is somehow "better."  I suspect you
would be, if you considered it possible, and a blanket statement that *no one*
ever has been seems pretty high-handed to me.
 
=}There was an anthropologist who did a study on comparison of free time
=}between a typical hunter-gatherer vs a typical office worker in a modern
=}society.  At least according to this guy, the former had more free time.
 
     Um hmmmmm.  And how much free time did that add up to when you compare a
30- to 40-year life span with a 70- to 80-year life span?  And what fascinating
pursuits did the illiterate hunter-gatherers have to fill this copious leisure
time?
 
=}I don't know about other countries, but I could easily believe the result if
=}the office worker were in Japan or US :-)
 
     It is very rare that anything need approach perfection in order to outdo 
the competition.
 
=}The question was not about your particular preference, but rather about an
=}existence of an answer which would be true for everyone.
 
     Which is how I answered it.  It looks to me like you're not giving fair
consideration to my arguments.  It looks to me like you automatically declare
any attempt to make a distinction between any two things as nothing more than
an expression of personal bias. 
 
     However, you say you "do not exclude the possibility of the 'good,'" so it
begins to look like your low opinion of others' intellectual capabilities
prevents you from considering the possibility that some facets of the "good"
may already have been discovered.
 
=}I've heard of many office workers in Japan, who would love to live off a
=}farm, back-to-nature style.
 
     Sure, complete with satellite dish, running water, and ambulance just a
phone call away.  Very few people would choose to die prematurely rather than
accept treatment at a modern hospital.  I think it's safe to call those who
would "screwballs."  They are *not* opting to return to the pleistocene, but
just to fine-tune their interaction with civilization.
 
=}Would you still say that industrialized societies are better for EVERYONE in
=}EVERY sense of the word?
 
     Absolutely.  If you produce a few mature and mentally normal people who
want to trade what they have for a 30-year life span with no medicine, no
dentistry, no *anything* except a life that's "short, nasty, and brutish," then
I'll concede there's something to discuss.
 
=}No it is not a clear indication that one is better than the other...Majority,
=}by itself, does not make a right.
 
     This is true, but has nothing to do with what I was arguing.
 
     I said, "Clearly this joint effort implies a consensus that a culture can
be worse than others."  This was in support of the assertion that it "Looks to
me like a long-term trend taking us from small tribes to a global society."
 
     The existence of such a consensus seems to me to point toward the
development of a global culture, with global mores and enforcement thereof.
 
=}But, objectively, I cannot say I did it because my culture is better.
 
     You cannot, "objectively," say that racism is wrong?  
 
     Amazing.
 
=}I want to keep in a corner of my mind that I'm not all-knowing, and no matter
=}how universally right it may seem, I could be biased or wrong. 
 
     Well, that's fine, but like anything else it can be taken too far.  You
seem to be letting it prevent you from ever taking a stand on anything, except
the proposition that any stand anyone else takes must be wrong.
 
=}The only justification I can give for my action (without any reservation) is
=}that I don't like apartheid.
 
     Really??  Sounds to me like you haven't given the matter much thought.
 
=}I'm optimistic that mankind can gradually gather "universal rules"
 
     But not willing to consider the possibility that some such rules may
already have been discovered, eh?
 
=}since there's no one to tell us what we've collected is right
 
     Rational beings are not totally without tools for testing hypotheses.
 
=}one has to be always mindful of possibility of error.
 
     Yes, but one must also be mindful of the danger of taking this principle
to a ridiculous extreme, and ending up unable to make any sort of distinction
or decision at all.  Which is exactly the position some people here have 
argued.
 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan