From: blamb@hri.com (Bill Lambert)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Brainwashed
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:28:28 GMT
Organization: Horizon Research, Inc.

=> Bill Lambert writes:
=>  
=> =}however, I wish that in this discussion, the participants might be more
=> =}careful so as to separate what are truly cultural elements from other aspects
=> =}of society that are economic or perhaps technological when making such
=> =}comparisons. Advances in medicine, and such, for example, are societal... not
=> =}cultural.

In article <34909@twics.co.jp>, dcroz@twics.co.jp writes:
=>      Sorry, but this looks to me like the sort of sophistry that renders any
=> debate an exercise in futility.
=>  
=>      Things that are societal are subsumed under the category of "the culture,"
=> as are things economical and its level of medicine.  Technology has profound
=> effects on culture.  
=>  
=>      You propose a false distinction.

I don't think it is a false distinction, because the original discussion
was definitely centered on human values as elements of culture, and then
comparison of those human values drifted into areas of medicine, health,
technology, etc. as a judgement as to whether one culture was better than 
another. Thus it drifted from the original discussion, which I was
quite happy to keep going. Shall we concentrate on those human
values and try to avoid the peripheral trappings?

=}Removing these types of comparisons from your discussion may. . .

=>      . . .make it impossible to discuss anything of significance. . .

I find human values much more significant than medical technology in
the stone age, which is where you were drifting.

=> =}lead you to the conclusion that indeed no one culture is inherently superior
=> =}to another. . .

=>      . . .lead us by default to the conclusion you want, since we have a priori
=> excluded every reasonable and meaningful basis for comparison. . .

Not true. You have no idea what conclusion I want.

=> =}because the infrastructure of that culture works best for the largest number
=> =}of people within that culture. . .

=>      . . .which totally begs the question of which infrastructure would work
=> the best for the largest number of *humans*, irrespective of culture.

I am happy to discuss that, if you like, as is Tad Perry, and I'm sure
many others.

=> =}and that in doing so, neither is superior. . .

=>      You have tried to rebut the proposition that it is possible to discover
=> whether A is superior to B (or vice versa) by comparing A to A and B to B, then
=> declaring them equal by fiat.
=>  
=>      You demand that we exclude from consideration all bona fide grounds for
=> comparison.  Why should we do that?

I don't think I excluded all bona fide grounds at all. I excluded technological
grounds as a means of comparison, which by definition will place all
human culture's human values on the same plane, and in fact broaden the
scope of the discussion... I hope.

=> =}The bridge between the two points is the fact that those educated within a
=> =}particular culture find it amenable to accept the assumptions of that culture
=> =}because they see it work for other people around them.

=>      You are doing nothing more than asserting the same argument all the other
=> relativists have made:  "It is impossible for people to transcend cultural
=> bias."
=>  
=>      Well, I say, "Prove it."  

Where did I say it was impossible? Please see my other posts. 

=>      Looking at history, one can find example after example of individuals
=> (exceptional, perhaps, but human) who *did* in fact transcend the biases of
=> their eras and cultures; who *did* see further, to a. . .dare I say it. . .yes,
=> yes, a *better* way of doing something, of organizing a society, of running a
=> country, of looking at the question of religious tolerance, of racism, of
=> imperialism.

Thanks for the education. I hope more of us are patient enough to make
that transcendence, if you know what I mean.

=>      History is, to quote one of those individuals, "jist a'poppin'" with
=> evidence that at least some humans *can* transcend cultural bias.  So where do
=> we ordinary mortals get off coming along and declaring their achievements
=> impossible?
=>
=>      I say the burden of proof is on the relativists to rebut this overwhelming
=> evidence; and I say they can't do it.  I say relativism is just a religion, or
=> perhaps only a superstition, with no basis in fact or reason.
=>
=>      And if some humans *can* transcend cultural bias, then it is discoverable
=> whether one culture is better than another or not.  It is most likely that all
=> cultures have aspects that are at least defensible, and others that are corrupt
=> to the core.  But this radical nihilistic solipsism puts us totally at the
=> mercy of the sophists, artificially and dogmatically unable to discover
=> anything of reality, or even whether reality exists.  
=>  
=>       (There are even products of the American university system who are
=>       awarded diplomas despite their conviction--get ready--their
=>       conviction that *there is no such thing* as objective reality.  And
=>       this despite the exhaustive treatments of the solipsistic fallacy
=>       available in the library of every major university in the country. 
=>       Amazing.)

Thanks for the speil, but I hardly think it relevant to whether technology
issues should be considered when considering cultural biases, or human
values. I believe you made too big of a leap here regarding what you
perceive as my intentions.

=> =}The aspects of living in a given society, and conforming to its already
=> =}existing conventions is "culture".

=>      Do what?  This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to any definition of
=> "culture" I've ever heard before.  Sounds much too narrow to me, although it is
=> also unclear.  The "aspects?"  What do you mean by that?  And what about all
=> the other things that are commonly included in the concept of culture?  What
=> are your grounds for excluding, for instance, cultural attitudes concerning
=> individual freedom or religion from the definition of "culture?"

Perhaps we may have different definitions as to what constitutes culture.
My definition tends to stick to human values rather than artifacts, and
certainly I never would exclude attitudes toward individual freedom or
religion... most assuredly not. A culture may tolerate different religions,
and people within it accordingly have some accepted relationship to
those religions, and this would be the convention in their culture that
they tend to confrom to, even though there may be many, or only one,
religion, for example.

=> =}Nor is culture a fixedly definable commodity, as most cultures evolve due to
=> =}both outside influences and internal upheavals.

=>      Nobody said it was fixed, but this doesn't make us incapable of
=> discovering some true things about some cultures.

As you said, "Prove it.", which is my point for jumping in when I did
and the way I did. Proving it by the presence of better technology
or life expectancy doesn't cut it for me.

=>      And we can, therefore, have a meaningful discussion about whether some
=> aspects of American culture, or, since this is soc.culture.japan, Japanese
=> culture, are better or worse than other approaches to the same functions.

We may agree that some are better or worse, and we may not agree that
some are better or worse. When we disagree which is better, then is it
not our own cultural bias that we are defending, and the lack of
agreement is an indicator of lack of common reference for better or
worse? To seek and understand that common reference will make those
discussions much more understandable, and in my view, things like
technology only cloud the issues - at least the ones I prefer to
discuss. If you insist on discussing whether Neanderthal medicine
made them an inferior culture or not, then I will be bored and
go away.

=>      If anybody wants to. If people are not too weary of being flamed every
=> time they say something about Japan that doesn't sound like one of
=> Shakespeare's sonnets.

Haven't seen too many sonnets here lately.

=>      Hey, it just occurred to me. . .I haven't been around very long, but I
=> haven't seen anyone on the "Japan-bashing" side flame anybody for being too
=> pro-Japanese.  Is this just an aberration?  Does it even out in the long term? 
=> If not, what does that mean?

It happens quite a bit :-) I don't think anybody keeps score, but after
a while you might be surprised to see someone you first reasoned as a basher
say something pro-Japanese, and someone you first reasoned as an asskisser
do some bashing. Such is life. There are many folks that have varied
experiences, and many who are balanced within their own view and
experience. It takes a while to know these folks, but generally... not
a bad lot. Oh yeah... there are some that try to keep the Peace, and
are sometimes quite undefinable in doing so. Cultural relativity ? :-)

- Bill Lambert
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan