Re: MD Racism in the forum.

From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 13:08:46 BST

  • Next message: Jonathan B. Marder: "Re: MD The Intellectual Level"

    Squonk,
     
    My last two posts were to refute your charge of "racism in the forum". They
    were not about whether or not Bo's (or my) position is correct. You have not
    answered that refutation, but continue to argue against Bo's position. Which, of
    course, you are welcome to do, and in this post you do so civilly, without
    insults, which I appreciate. But I'm still waiting either for a refutation of my
    refutation, or a retraction.
     
    - Scott

    Hi Scott,
    I have found your original post:

    Scott:
    No. What has happened is that you have blown up a small thing into an
    absurdity. The small thing is that we posters of a Western background have taken our
    examples for the most part from Western culture and history. That does not
    mean we think Western culture is superior. It means we talk about what we are
    most familiar with.
     
    You are using this small thing to accuse Bo of a social crime instead of
    replying to his ideas with ideas of your own. In your posts I have seen some
    ideas, but they are usually buried by invective, so I seldom bother to try to dig
    them out. This racism charge is the worst yet. It would at best be just silly,
    but overall I fear it is malicious. As low quality as it gets. And as Steve
    says, works to devalue accurate charges of racism. Like calling whoever one
    doesn't agree with a fascist.

     
    Specifically, your racism charge comes from the claim that Bo and I have
    stated that S/O thinking arose in Greek culture about 500 BC, and that we call
    this the birth of the intellectual level. It is true that I have not usually
    stated that such thinking also arose in other cultures, but as mentioned, that is
    only because I and my interlocutors are more familiar with Western culture. It
    does not imply that I think there is no intellect elsewhere. However, you
    claim that Eastern culture is not S/O based, which if true would imply that they
    are not intellectual (if S/O thinking is the mark of the intellectual level),
    which is absurd. But it is straightforward to argue against that claim. There
    were materialist and idealist Indian philosophers and everything in between
    back then. This means that those philosophers were aware of the distinction
    between mind and what the mind perceived, and thought that only the perceived
    objects were real, or thought they were illusions. That can only come out of S/O
    patterns of thought. If there were not such thinking, why did Nagarjuna think
    it was necessary to argue that subjects and objects had no inherent
    self-existence? And why did so few listen or understand, so that hundreds of years later
    the arguments had to be repeated by Chandrakirti and others (and still not
    accepted)?
     
    So when we say that "S/O thinking arose in Greek culture about 500 BC", we
    are referring to its advent in Western culture, not saying that it only arose in
    the West. Of course, it is a matter of dispute whether or not S/O thinking is
    the mark of the intellectual level, but you seem to prefer to use demagogy
    rather than argument over this question.
     
    - Scott

    sq: I agree differentiation's are found in all cultures. Eastern culture is
    not as severe as the West, but its there, i agree. I do not believe i have ever
    said Eastern culture does NOT have differentiation's?
    I don't see a huge link between these differentiation's and intellect.
    Intellect can assert they are there, but that is another matter all together.
    Intellect can assert many things - it can assert that everything is totally
    material, even society, as in Thomas Hobbes.

    Skutvik conflates aesthetics, and in doing so denies the East of one, namely
    the intellect. Considering the East is more aesthetically inclined than the
    West, that is pretty damn ignorant in my view. I feel the Skutvik doctrine to be
    patronising and bigoted.

    There are no subjects and objects in the MoQ.

    All the best,
    squonk

    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 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 13:11:08 BST