From: davidg@aegis.or.jp (Dave McLane)
Newsgroups: fj.misc
Subject: Re: There's-only-one-Truth-ism?
Date: 25 Jul 92 09:01:17 GMT
Distribution: fj
Organization: Aegis Society, Kyoto Japan

mtachiba@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Masahiko Tachibana) writes:

>In article <2146@aegis.or.jp> davidg@aegis.or.jp (Dave McLane) writes:

>>>> There seems two major trends in the world right now: 1) Folk
>>>> Societies (also known as Ethnic Minorities) are becoming
>>>                           ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ (sounds bad to me)
>>
>> Yes, it doesn't sound so good but I think this is the current term.
>> A while back some people used 'nation' (meaning a culture, but not
>> necessarily a political state) but this never seemed to catch on.
>> So, for example, Koreans in Japan are an 'Ethnic Minority'. That is,
>> they have their own culture and customs which are different from the
>> majority. 

>    I think the word ethnic is the source of bad feeling to me.
>The word reminds me not only of the way explorers from Europe did 
>in the past, but also....

>    This month I had a short trip to HAKODATE, south end of HOKKAIDO, 
>and I visited a museum where many every-day goods of Ainu were collected.
>Their own culture today is nearly destroyed by this country's majorities
>and the life in those days are frozen in the showcases.  It made me sad.

Yes, it is usually used to talk about such sadnesses and thus the
Ethnic Minorities are making a case for the validity of their culture.
But I feel that it's a bit one-sided: how about 'Ethnic Majorities'?

>> IMHO trying to communicate without any implicit understanding isn't
>> very practical as it means everything has to be spelled out
>> (defined) each time. But on the other hand there are various things
>> one can do to define/encourage such implicit understanding. I would
>> say the net has it's own set of implicit understandings which cut
>> across cultural/national borders.

>    Umm, I'd still say it's dangerous in believing implicit understanding
>in communication.  Rather, I would start from the recognition of the
>unstable, ambiguous nature of implicit understanding.  After repeated 
>scrap-and-build process, it might be maintaind.  

Yes, I think so. Believing implicit understandings without any
history of the situation is, as you say, dangerous. Best to start
from the recognition of how we don't really know the meaning from
the words themselves, but how the words are being used by a
particular group of people at a particular time. After some time,
when the meaning is more or less agree upon, the words can be used
as a kind of short-hand. But when difficulties arise, one of the
first things to ask yourself is "Do I really understand what those
words mean in this situation"? 

>    Or am I simply timid because of the poor experience as a netter?   

Maybe. Or maybe you're not somebody who just wants to use words the
way they want to use them and then fight with people who don't use
them in the same way :-)

>    Ja, mata sono uchi.  

Ditto :O)

Dave

--
Dave McLane                                       davidg@aegis.or.jp
You're free to copy/quote/translate this as long as credit is given. 
Nagaokakyoshi, Kyoto Japan Tel: +81-75-951-1168 Fax: +81-75-957-1087