From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Oct 30 2003 - 15:52:38 GMT
Dear Wim,
> Examples of the habitual patterns of behaviour that define societies and
> change relatively little despite political revolutions are the ways in
> which Russian and Chinese subjects relate to those in power. Russian
> peasants related in much the same way to their Czarist rulers as they
> did to Stalin's regime. Kolchoz and Sovchoz organization of agriculture
> closely resembled bonded labour on large farms owned by the former
> Russian aristocracy. In China the system of rule by the Communist party
> resembles the way Chinese emperors ruled through the mandarin class.
> Such social patterns of value do change in the course of time. The
> Chinese and Russian social patterns of value of 1960 differ from those
> in 1860 and these differ from those in 1760. The way Chinese and
> Russians motivated their behaviour in 1960 probably differed more from
> the way they did in 1860 than the way they did in 1860 differed from the
> way they did in 1760. The change in their patterns of behaviour between
> 1860 and 1960 probably wasn't much bigger (if at all) than between 1760
> and 1860, however. A case can even be made that the social level changes
> between 1760 and 1860 (when both areas were being included in the world
> economy) were markedly bigger than those between 1860 and 1960 (when
> they were 'closing up' again in economic terms).
I wouldn't expect social patterns to change much under changing forms
of dictatorship. But when a revolution occurs that overthrows the
dictatorial form of government and substitutes a republican form, then
the social patterns are likely to change rather dramatically. The best
example I can give you is immigrants to this country from Europe who in
a single generation changed from old country patterns of social
behavior to new, freer patterns (at times much to the chagrin of their
elders.) Many Europeans today believe American's social patterns are
too free because they promote, for example, vulgar food and mass
entertainment that is corrupting the tastes of nations that have a much
more refined tradition.
> Returning to your 19 Oct 2003 14:57:52 -0400 e-mail that started my
> involvement in this thread: 'I find Rorty's theory of truth (what you
> can get away with) ... socially dangerous'.
>
> This theory of truth may indeed threaten (what you call) 'social values'
> (if they are indeed the same as what I call 'intellectual patterns of
> value that motivate people to hold societies together'). It may even act
> as a catalyst for renewal of social patterns of value, especially of
> those social patterns of value that are maintained with the contribution
> of a SOM-based theory of truth (subjective views that conform to
> objective reality). Isn't that what we should be after here? That
> doesn't make Rorty's theory of truth (or rather your reproduction of it)
> more 'true' than the conventional (SOM-based) one, but it IS an argument
> for calling it more 'Dynamic'...
Rorty's theory of truth is that there is no fundamental theory of
truth. Truth is whatever some group says it is, i.e. what you can get
away with. Call it Dynamic if you wish. I call it disastrous.
> You (19 Oct 2003 09:06:41 -0400) 'consider Rorty and his fellow
> travelers dangerous to a free society because without confidence in the
> concept of truth (and it's companion, logic), the public is disarmed
> against lies'. Shouldn't the idea that something can be a 'lie' (i.e. be
> inconsistent with objective reality) be dropped in a MoQ-based culture?
Definitely not. A culture, MOQ-based or otherwise, will fall apart if
truth standards are up for grabs. Imagine what life it would like if
you couldn't trust you doctor, your electrician, or your plumber.
> Isn't there an alternative way of arming the public against low-quality
> ideas possible that is based in evolutionary thinking? "I did not have
> sex with that woman . . ." would then be a lower quality statement than
> "I didn't go as far as vaginal penetration with that woman. I didn't
> want to endanger my marriage. I am sorry that I didn't ask my wife in
> advance whether she would experience what I did (which is none of your
> business) as too threatening for our relation." because it expresses
> more primitive ideas about how men and women should deal with each other
> in intimate relations and how open a president of the USA should be
> about his sexual behaviour to the public.
Let me ask you. Should society punish you if you are caught lying in
testimony to a court?
With regards,
Platt
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 Oct 30 2003 - 15:51:14 GMT