From: dcroz@twics.co.jp (DAVID CROSSLIN)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: What is Culture?
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:54:41 GMT
Organization: TWICS, Tokyo, Japan

Bill Lamb writes (in various notes): Branch
 
=}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.
 
=}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 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.
 
=}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.  
 
     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.
 
=}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?
 
=}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."
 
=}. . .are clumsily argued. . .
 
     <ahem>
 
=}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.)  
 
=}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.  
 
     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.
 
=}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).
 
=}. . .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.
 
=}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.
 
     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. . .
 
     Oh?  Does that mean you're through playing "devil's advocate?"
 
=>>>      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.
 
=}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?  
 
     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."
 
     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.