Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 21:45:53 GMT

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD Self-consciousness"

    Dear Platt,

    You wrote 30 Oct 2003 10:52:38 -0500:
    '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'

    American social patterns of value differ from European ones, sure, but they
    didn't become different by a revolution and not even in a single generation.
    Europeans moving to America and participating first in European social
    patterns of value and then in American ones is not an example of changing
    patterns of value. Europeans moving to America and American social patterns
    of value changing (but not becoming simply European) as a result would be.
    Europeans simply taking their social patterns of value to America and
    creating a 'European society' their would not mean a change in social
    patterns of value either.

    You wrote also:
    '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.'

    Dynamic or degenerate? MoQish argumentation would be to quote examples of
    Rorty's theory of truth leading to higher quality (intellectual or social)
    patterns of value respectively lower quality ones.
    I don't know examples of higher quality results (because I don't know enough
    about Rorty and his followers). Maybe Matt K. does?
    I don't remember you quoting examples of lower quality results. You just
    seemed to express your fear that it might lead to such. Can you give such
    examples?

    You continue:
    'A culture, MOQ-based or otherwise, will fall apart if truth standards are
    up for grabs.'

    Following Pirsig's definition of 'a culture' as a sum of social and
    intellectual patterns of value (in 'Lila's Child') I agree that the
    intellectual patterns of value of most cultures, i.e. the SOM-based ones,
    (and thus those cultures) would fall apart without truth standards. I don't
    know enough about Rorty's theories and their effect to know whether they
    would annihilate truth standards or merely substitute them with other (more
    dynamic) ones.
    In practice groups DO determine what is truth for their members, so they
    apparently do have a truth standard... The question is whether ON TOP OF
    'social-determined truth' there is a more fundamental truth (and whether we
    need it). What basis do we have for telling the group that it is false, for
    denouncing its truth standards? Merely the truth standards of another group?
    So what?
    Societies and cultures only fall apart because of the competition between
    different groups and their intellectual standards. Without a group making
    his theory into a standard, Rorty cannot be of any social danger. His theory
    in itself is not 'socially dangerous'.
    Groups competing for membership can choose almost any intellectual pattern
    of value to rationalize why people should choose to 'belong' to them. It is
    not much of an achievement (or proof of high intellectual quality) for an
    intellectual pattern of value if it is 'chosen' by a stable social pattern
    of value to be part of the same 'culture'. Compare: the sales of
    wordprocessing software can be boosted both by writers of bad prose and by
    writers of good prose (e.g. if the bad prose happens to underpin a
    dictatorial regime).

    Finally you ask me:
    'Should society punish you if you are caught lying in testimony to a court?'

    No, intellect should. Social patterns of value (in my definition:
    involuntary, habitual and/or socially copied patterns of behavior), e.g.
    paying respect to an impressively clad judge, are not threatened at all by
    lies.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    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 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 22:26:32 GMT