From: tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Tad Perry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: What is culture? (was: Brainwashied
Date: 6 Jan 1993 23:13:08 GMT
Organization: unaffiliated
NNTP-Posting-Host: gibdo.engr.washington.edu

In article <7576@bigbird.hri.com.hri.com> blamb@hri.com (Bill Lambert) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan05.233609.21953@gibdo.engr.washington.edu>, 
>tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Tad Perry) writes:
>=> Seeing as you've made the claim that it's not valid to judge one
>=> culture as being "better" than another, and that attributes which
>=> imply "better-ness" are probably due to technology and society, not
>=> culture, wouldn't you have to admit that a culture that greets others
>=> by bowing or shaking hands is inherently "better" (in that it promotes
>=> a universally justifiable good known as Peace) than one that shakes a
>=> spear?
>
>No... I certainly wouldn't have to admit that bowing or handshaking
>is preferable to shaking a spear, and it just such a cultural bias
>that I was talking about as an arifact. In the culture of spear
>shakers, shaking one's spear has the same meaning as a handshake, 
>Shakespeare (sorry... stop me before I pun again). Moreover,
>offering your right hand to shake maybe the supreme insult in that
>culture as that hand was probably just used to wipe your ass with.

So, you admit that bowing is better than both spear-shaking and
hand-offering in that it is neither threatening nor offensive (nor
likely to spread germs)? This was in fact something I was considering.
Bowing may be the "best" method humans have developed to greet each
other.

>The signal for the "universally justifiable good" known to you
>as Peace is different in each culture. The one that you understand 
>is acceptable for you, while you didn't understand the corresponding
>symbol presented by Mr. Willyou Shake-spear.

>=> ............................. I'm of the opinion that one culture
>=> can be judged as better than another based on that culture's promotion
>=> of certain universal truths. And that there are such universal truths.
>=> And that they can be discovered and applied by anyone...............
>
>Whose universe? Is it possible that different cultures may derive
>different 'universal truths' that may not match yours?

Sure it's possible.  It may in fact be just such a thing that makes
their culture better than mine.  But in being universal, it would only
take contact with the culture to recognize the validity of a universal
truth. They may have done me a favor by discovering it first.  You've
obviously assumed somewhere along the line that I think my culture is
better (de facto) and therefore you don't even want the discussion to
proceed any further. You may clear this up, if I've read your
arguments incorrectly.

>In such a case, who will arbitrate whether one person's truth is
>better than another person's truth?

Well, you're standing on carefully on ground where I can't even
discuss the issue with you. I think the idea that there is one
person's truth and another person's truth is invalid. There are
truths. Once discovered they are shared by everybody. If one culture
hasn't discovered the truth of Peace as Virtue, and is very warlike,
it would not invalidate that truth for those that believe in it.

In fact your very arguments could be turned to support inhumane
regimes such as the Nazi's. "Who will decice that our truth is better
than Nazi truth?" Oh, come on. Sometimes it's obvious. If you want to
argue that in most cases it's *not* obvious which values are better
than others, I can accept that easily. If you want to argue that it's
absolutely not possible and that the concept of "better" is always
inapplicable, then I disagree with you.

>=> freedom is one of them.  A culture with traditions limiting freedom
>=> (and I'm making no specific claims at this time) is not as good as a
>=> culture that doesn't promote freedom. Balancing out all the possible
>=> universal truths (I.e. whther to promote safety vs. freedom--a common
>=> one in the Japan vs. America debate) is the hard part. But for each
>=> component separately, I think you can determine which culture is
>=> better than another in terms of that one component only. And, if you
>=> could rank the relative merit of each of these truths, it would be
>=> possible to objectively state which cultures were better than others.
>
>But if freedom is a universal truth that overrides safety, isn't it just
>as valid that safety for some is a universal truth that overrides freedom.

There you go assuming where I stand again. This was in fact the point
I was trying to make. It would be nice to be able to discuss whether
some social control for the sake of safety is *better* than less
safety for the sake of freedom. Under your arguments there is no
concept of "better" and the discussion cannot proceed. I believe more
social control fo the sake of safety is better. There. I said it.  But
to you that's impossible. It's all relative. No culture can be better
than another.

>Is safety not another concept for "freedom from harm" and as such another
>form of freedom. Nor will freedom as a universal truth buy you a cup of
>coffee anywhere in this galaxy until you can define it as more than a word.
>Absolute freedom for anyone to do as they damn well please is called
>anarchy, and few will opt for that as a form for society.

But I note that when the concept of "better" supports the type of society
you obviously prefer, you have no qualms whatsoever in invoking it.
"Who is to arbitrate that our truths are better than an anarchy's truths?"
Your own rhetorical question rings pretty hollow when filled in with
the proper specifics in light of what you say just above.

>Your concept of freedom is surely definable by your terms and your
>assumptions, but will fail to carry those who may live under different
>assumptions or other priorities.

My assumptions and priorities concerning freedom may not be as good as
someone elses. There's may not be as good as mine. Through exchange of
ideas we might be able to move in a direction that indicated which was
better.

>Actually, I realize what you're getting at by the presentation
>of judgement by universal truths. That it could be so! And
>yes, I wish that some set of them were easily recognizable by
>all. But alas... we seem to be stuck with relativity of
>assumptive half-truths while working our way toward the whole
>truth. God willing, we may find it, but that's an assumption
>of a universal truth on my part that not everyone may agree
>with :-) I understand *this* universal truth well.

Well, if you could just allow that pondering which of these assumptive
half-truths were better than the others we'd be a little bit further
along in the discussion, now wouldn't we? I'd love to see a discussion
like I mentioned above where one side takes the stance: "Japanese
society is better in terms of safety v. freedom" and the other says:
"US society is better than Japanese society in terms of safety v.
freedom." Maybe it's difficult to come to a clear consensus as the
number of variable grow, but I think, it could be said that one
culture is better than another. In the case of cultures such as
Japan's and the US's it may be difficult to sort out all the variables
and come to a conclusion that everyone can accept, but in extreme
cases such as whether Nazi culture is better than current North
American culture I'd have to say that some of the more important
variables are so far out of whack in the case of the Nazi's that few
would argue current North American culture isn't better.

>Interesting discussion. Sometimes I think it's a good idea to
>discuss culture in a newsgroup named as such. Thanks for
>following up to all who have, and thanks to Tad for more
>fuel.

That's part of what I'm here for. Extreme and absolute stands can
often lend the fuel that helps get to the truth. In debate classes
you're often required to take the side you *don't* believe in for just
this reason.




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tad Perry      Internet:    tvp@gibdo.engr.washington.edu
               CompuServe:  70402,3020
               NIFTY-Serve: GBG01266