From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 13:21:54 GMT
Rebecca Temmer wrote:
> Hello David,
> I see what you're saying but I think we're coming from slightly different
> points of view - let me try to explain myself.
> Daid said:
> What with the popular, of cultural relativism I actually think this is a
> dangerous standpoint to take. People are poor, people are rich, it's all
> relative; people live, people are killed, it's all relative; people lie,
> people are honest, it's all relative.
> It's not. What happens in one culture is not completely disrelated to
> another. Just because hedonism is bad in one culture and O.K. in
> another doesn't suddenly make hedonism 'relative'. Hedonism, i.e
> intellectual advocacy of biological quality, threatens social value and
> so it is bad not just for one particular person in one particular
> culture at a certain time, but for all people, everywhere.
>
> Rebecca replies:
> When I write 'it's all relative' I'm not tyring to claim that everything is
> equal; I think that's obviously untrue. What I'm implying, for example, is
> that hedonism is not bad _by itself_ you need to put it into context in
> order for it to be bad - or good. Depending on what point of view you look
> at hedonism, it can be either. From a social point of view, hedonism is evil
> because it destroys society; from a biological point of view, however,
> hedonism is great.
> Nothing can be measured but by comparison to something else - that's what
> I'm getting at. Now the task becomes saying what viewpoint should take
> precedent. The MOQ says that the intellectual level shouldn't cater to the
> biological level if it undermines the social level.
> I'm not sure if I'm being entirely clear here. Do you understand what I'm
> getting at?
> Rebecca
>
Sure,
But as I understand it, the idea that something should be judged and compared to other levels as to whether it's good or bad is not the popular viewpoint of relativism. To clear this up I grabbed the
dictionary term of relativism..
Relativism:
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
In this instance the key word above being 'absolute'. Relativism has come as a reaction to classical absolutist thinking. Experience has shown the absolutists wrong(quantum theory for starters), and
relativism to me seems the prevailing(contrarian) attitude - "The standard is, there is no standard". Clearly this is quite a different viewpoint from your one so maybe to avoid further confusion
you could call it by a different name? Ian suggested relationist? Works for me.
Now that I've helped with the name, I might as well respond to the theory.
I don't think that you need to compare something to something else in order for it to be bad, or good. Sit on a hot stove, is it bad or good? Listen to your favorite song, is it bad or good? All
that's being compared is the music to Dynamic Quality, which isn't really a comparison, because Dynamic Quality is nothing and is there all along. But to understand it intellectually/metaphysically
however, I agree, I'd need to compare what happened with past experiences and make a judgement as to whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. Maybe it's a social requirement that we have singed
pants? :)
Cheers for the reply.
-David
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 13:37:57 GMT