From: blamb@hri.com (Bill Lambert)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: What is Culture?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:05:07 GMT
Organization: Horizon Research, Inc.

In article <35256@twics.co.jp>, dcroz@twics.co.jp (DAVID CROSSLIN) writes:
=> Bill Lamb writes (in various notes): Branch

Lambert, Thank you.
 
=> =}Not true. You have no idea what conclusion I want.

=>      Apparently not.  I had assumed that you wished to argue the position you
=> were arguing.  Now, after reading the last 18 pages of your notes, I'm unable
=> to detect *any* coherent position.

Please pay better attention.

=> =}I never denied the existance of objective reality.
=>  
=> =}I never insisted that all moral judgements are simply matters of opinion
=>  
=> =}the original discussion was definitely centered on human values as elements
=> =}of culture

=>      The original discussion was centered on whether or not it was possible to
=> make any sort of judgement *at all* as to the relative merits of cultures.  
=> 
=>      Some people argued that this is never possible, others that it is.  You
=> joined the argument in rebuttal of those who argued that such judgements can be
=> made, that objective truth exists and is discoverable.  Under those circum-
=> stances, it seems reasonable for people to have thought that you intended to
=> come down on the relativist side of the issue.

I even made my own case for an objective morality, (which no one else,
including those who are so upset by racism, would do) and still don't want
to apply it to aspects of cultural comparisons. This is not inconsistent.

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

=>      Well, ex-kyuuuuze. . .meeeeee.  A statement was made that all cultures are
=> absolutely equal under all circumstance; to which I replied that a culture
=> which provides greater personal safety, better health care, and a longer life
=> is better than a culture that doesn't do as well in these areas.  At which
=> point you joined the thread and declared it restricted to "values."  I didn't
=> realize you were the official arbitrator of the subjects of debate here, but
=> I'll chop all my posts through you from now on to make sure I'm on a topic of
=> interest to you.

No one said they were or were not equal... just incomparable. Your consideration
fails to include complicated interactions and other social elements that
make such comparisons of "better or worse" rather futile. As you do in
your deft analysis of my posts, you would like to pick at one point
and disregard all that passed before and after. Personally I don't
believe life, or societies, to be as quite black and white as you seem
to want them to be.

=> =}I have been playing Devil's advocate in this and other posts whenever someone
=> =}has pointed out a cultural quirk that they deem to be bad or immoral. . .

=>      Your arguments against the existence of "universal" truths, whether you
=> were trying to play Devil's advocate or not, went primarily along these lines:
 
=> =}Is it possible that different cultures may derive different 'universal
=> =}truths' that may not match yours?
=>  
=> =}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.
=>  
=> =}it would be difficult to convince members of the cultures in which these
=> =}practices are prevelent that it is a bad idea
=>  
=> =}Howya gonna argue with the Nazi?
=>  
=> =}then how are you going to convince someone who may be racist some basis why
=> =}that racism may be undesirable?"
  
=>      Etc., etc.  All of which boils down to an argument that, "The fact that
=> some people think a thing false is evidence (proves?) that it is not a
=> universal truth."
=>  
=>      This is so bad, to quote a famous physicist, that it's not even wrong.
=>  
=>      The only thing this proves is that it is possible for people to disagree,
=> which I don't think was at issue.  The fact that some human beings hold a given
=> opinion says nothing whatsoever about its validity or lack thereof, nor does
=> the difficulty of persuading them otherwise.  

The above quotes from me were questioning posters as to the basis of
universal truths or some moral position that they took. I stated this
time and time again. Why do you chose to ignore that?
 
=>      Time and time again you advance diversity of opinion and the difficulty of
=> persuading others as evidence against the universality of an idea.  Still, you
=> may not have intended to make this argument, so let's delete all such
=> references from your notes and see what we're left with.

OK.

=> =}the Gods may have treated them quite more favorably. . .we think this is
=> =}stupid, of course, but who is to say that. . .
 
=>      "Stupid," you say?  Okay.  But then you say you were only partially
=> joking, so I don't really know what to think.

=> =}Stupid again, of course. . .

=>      Yes, I quite agree.  Why are you advancing arguments that you yourself
=> call stupid?

Why... to find out Mr. Withers objective reality. Please remember there
were more people posting here than you. Why... I actually had a conversation
with a couple of them along the way! Discussion... it's called.

=> =}to argue points that can't be argued by any common means.
=>  
=>      To argue points that can't be argued by any *rational* means. . .to argue
=> points that can only be supported by "stupid" arguments.  This is worth doing? 
=> I thought playing devil's advocate involved advancing *reasonable* arguments
=> for a contrary position.  Nobody ever said the Devil's arguments were "stupid."

You missed the point of my asking.

=> =}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.
=>  
=>      It is not the act of shaking the spear itself which he proposed as an
=> absolute, but the hostile intent that could be symbolized by such a gesture. 
=> (Dag-gone it, I woulda swore that was plain as day.)  

Regardless of the fact that that is how Zulus say hello. But you didn't know
that, so it must not be true.

=> =}In such a case, who will arbitrate whether one person's truth is better than
=> =}another person's truth?
=>  
=>      This is irrelevant.  Arbitration only becomes an issue when persuasion is
=> abandoned; an idea is true or false independently of human arbitration.  

It should be so easy. You claim an idea is true or false independent of
human arbitration, but arbitration may be needed to put in concrete a
common basis for argument, and therfore eventual agreement.

=>      From a practical standpoint, if one can persuade enough members of a
=> society that a given thing should be done, it will be done without any
=> arbitration. . .although one's degree of success in persuasion has nothing
=> whatever to do with the validity of the position.

Arbitration may be a tool of persuasion, may it not?
 
=> =}When we disagree which is better, then is it not our own cultural bias that
=> =}we are defending. . .
 
=>      Maybe.  Or it could be that one side is right and the other wrong with
=> reference to objective reality (the existence of which you have stipulated).

It should be so easy.

=> =}. . .and the lack of agreement is an indicator of lack of common reference
=> =}for better or worse?

=>      Perhaps.  Or it could be that the lack of agreement is indicative of
=> ignorance, prejudice, and/or superstition--on both sides, or even <gasp,
=> cringe> on one side and not the other.  It could be (Oh, heresy!) that Galileo
=> was *right* and the clergy *wrong* in an absolute sense.

Absolute sense is nonsense in some sense for my two cents, especially
when people's sense of insence (the mystical) prevails. 

(The Copernican theory was widely accepted by scholars before Gallileo,
but when discussing it or presenting evidence to support it, they
always left an "out", and tried to leave an opening for the church
to take a position on the new found evidence or theory. Gallileo
became potential human cooking fuel when he tried to ram his support
of the Copernican universe down the throat of the church at large,
and in doing so probably set back popular acceptance of the theory
for 100 years or so. You can look it up. Yes... Gallileo was
absolutely right, but in his adamance, negatively served the
purpose of his cause by ignoring the culture he was living in.)

=> =}I just couldn't find any here that weren't. . .
=>  
=>      Not surprising, considering that we were still discussing the question of
=> whether it could be done at all.  You could have saved a lot of bandwidth by
=> stipulating that such comparisons are possible if a method that doesn't rely
=> "solely on personal preference" can be devised.

My point was "Don't try to make comparisons if they *do* rely on personal
preference... I'll say it again. So... you're the guy that wants to argue
about the relative merits of say... to pick one... Japanese racism vs.
the world... so, why don't don't you tell us about your absolute
morality and so on. I did.

Your turn.

=>      Or, since you yourself have proposed the utilitarian justification for
=> making such judgements, we *could* have just cut to the chase and started
=> discussing cultural issues. . .if not for your "devil's advocate" support of
=> the radical relativist position.

=> =}I am happy to discuss that. . .

I guess that was my way of telling you that it ain't gonna be easy, pal.
  
=>      Oh?  Does that mean you're through playing "devil's advocate?"

I won't make any promises.
  
=> =>>>      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."

=>      Well, all right.  Even though you've offered no valid support for the
=> proposition to which I referred.
=>  
=>      Somebody wrote here that, "If nothing else, racism and sexism have wasted
=> much energy and much human potential."  I agree that racist and sexist cultures
=> waste a lot of energy and human potential.  I offer as proof the historical
=> record of every racist and/or sexist culture from the dawn of history, which I
=> am *not* going to type in and upload.
=>  
=>      If you wish to demonstrate that this is a matter of "personal preference,"
=> it seems to me that you must either deny the historical record or cite an
=> example of a racist and/or sexist culture that did or does *not* waste a lot of
=> energy and human potential.
=>  
=>      If you can't, then I think we must accept that this is one true thing that
=> applies to all cultures.

So... is that all? An economic stance is all that you hold dear to
counter racism? Pity. And I brought it up too, prefaced by "moreover".

Moreover, please cite an example of a culture that is/was not sexist
or racist. Empirically, the very short period of US awareness about
race and sexism issues has coincided with a period of economic decline.
The waste of human energy or potential is a *theory* that seems to make
sense, but has never been truly tested or proven.
 
=> =}Without out such explanations or justifications, you'd might as well be
=> =}pissing in the wind, or your only recourse is a form counter racism as
=> =}espoused by some netters responding to this thread, particularly the person
=> =}who started it.
 
=>      "Counter racism."  Now what can *that* mean?  The diametrical opposite of
=> racism?  Something that bears the same relation to racism that anti-matter
=> bears to matter?
=>
=>      It couldn't be that this person is proposing that a negative attitude
=> toward racism and racists is the moral equivalent of racism, could it?  

First of all, why do you think it was you I was refering to when I
mentioned counter racist attitudes. I don't think I mentioned you
by name, did I?

Secondly, when diatribes against racism seem directed solely toward one
people, without any attempt at balance, or any consideration of the
audience that's tuned in, it tends to look that way.

=>      Why, jeepers, on reflection, I think it could.  I think this person is
=> trying to discredit arguments for the proposition that racism is endemic in
=> this culture by saying, "No, when you say they're racist that make you a racist
=> and gets them off the hook.  From now on, the only acceptable topic for
=> discussion is *your* racism--theirs is off limits."

My attitudes about racism, as I have outlined and presented, apply to
everybody... not just one race or culture. I think you tried to define 
the limits, not me, and pretty clearly as well.

=>      I guess some people, finding themselves on the receiving end of this,
=> finding themselves labeled a racist on such spurious grounds, might get pretty
=> steamed.  Hmmm, yeah, that gets me pretty steamed, all right.

Get steamed if you like. I just apply my own standards, as I have stated
them... the GR test, if you remember. Sorry, but you failed.

- Bill Lambert

Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan