From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Nov 07 2003 - 22:32:01 GMT
Dear Platt,
We disagreed on the question whether social patterns of values can
dramatically change in a short period of time. Your 30 Oct 2003
10:52:38 -0500 example was:
'immigrants to [the USA] from Europe who in a single generation changed from
old country patterns of social behavior to new, freer patterns'.
You added 4 Nov 2003 10:23:29 -0500:
'For the most part, the first generation of Europeans kept their own
language. But their children spoke English. Language is a social pattern of
value.'
That addition makes it very easy to underline the point the I tried to make:
The English language (as social pattern of value) didn't change because of
those ex-Europeans adopting it, or at least not dramatically.
By the way: interesting that you now (7 Nov 2003 08:01:26 -0500) write:
'I presume we can all agree that language is a symbolic system?'
By implied reference to Pirsig's definition (in 'Lila's Child') of the
intellectual level as collection and anipulation of symbols that stand for
patterns of experience, you now state effectively that language is a social
pattern of value!
Actually I agree that language is BOTH a social AND an intellectual pattern
of value. That's exactly why I regularly call symbolic language a possible
'linking pin' or 'threshold' or 'machine code interface' between the social
and intellectual levels.
That also implies that some aspects of language (e.g. the meanings of part
of a vocabulary) CAN dramatically change in a short period of time. So much
of a language (e.g. the English language) is ingrained in habitual patterns
of behavior that are copied unthinkingly between generations, however, that
is stays recognizably the same language (the same social pattern of value)
over centuries.
You answered my request for examples of Rorty's theory of truth leading to
lower quality (intellectual or
social) patterns of value with:
'Just read Andy's diatribe comparing Bush and Gringrich to Stalin and
Hitler.'
Without more exact reference, I cannot find and read it. I don't recall
having read it.
If you mean that a 'diatribe' is a low quality pattern of value (mostly
intellectual, I would say), it remains to be shown that this low quality is
a result of his (and Rorty's) theory of truth and not of -say- having slept
badly the night before.
Or do you mean that by some absolute standard of truth (that is
irreconcilable with Andy/Rorty's theory of truth) Bush and Gringrich are
incomparable to Stalin and Hitler? Well, comparing doesn't imply equating.
They're surely comparable in some aspects and incomparable in others.
Comparing them is just a way of drawing attention to some aspects, not
necessarily the ones Stalin and Hitler are most noted for. Comparison to
such generally reviled historic persons is usually not a very nice,
constructive way of reasoning. Low quality (usually), indeed. But a result
of a particular theory of truth??? I doubt it.
I'm still not convinced that Rorty's theory of truth is 'socially
dangerous', as you stated 19 Oct 2003 14:57:52 -0400.
I wrote:
'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?'
You replied:
'So am I to presume you see no difference between the truth standards of
Soviet Communism and those of the Netherlands? And so, if Soviet style
Communism were to take over the Netherlands, your response would be "So
what?" I don't believe it.'
Of course I see a difference and of course I don't like the truth standards
of Soviet style Communism. But do I need a more fundamental, absolute
standard of truth to know the difference and to know that I dislike other
truth standards than my own? Isn't that difference and that dislike (in your
version of the MoQ as in mine) simply a direct quality experience (of the
intellectual variety, I'd say) that doesn't need a more fundamental standard
to be tested for its truth (for me)? My 'so what?' meant 'so what, if we
don't have a more fundamental, absolute standard of truth?'. Aren't my Dutch
truth standards enough as a basis to tell Soviet style Communists to please
keep their truth standards for themselves and not force them upon me?
Do I neglect the role of the individual in discovering truth and changing
'groupthink' truths (as you charge me 4 Nov 2003 10:23:29 -0500)?
Succesive higher quality intellectual patterns of value do start with
individuals of course. But they only become relevant patterns (for us now)
because of the subsequent support these individuals got from a group.
Without this group passing their ideas on, it would not have become a
pattern that reached into our time for us to participate in. For every
individual rebel against 'groupthink' that DID start a new pattern, there
were lot's of them that DIDN'T and that were marginalized, and (in
hindsight) rightly so.
Near the end you state:
'without the "social" policeman to back it up, an "intellectual" judge
couldn't punish a rabbit.'
I'd say that the punishment carried ou by policemen, jailers and the like
are backup up by the reasons for punishing given by the judge, not the other
way round. Punishment in that context is not a social pattern of value, but
an intellectual one.
At the end you ask me to summarize my 'economics of want and greed' in 100
words or less. That needs some more thought than I can spare at this time.
I'll return to it.
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 : Fri Nov 07 2003 - 22:34:34 GMT