From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 16:47:14 GMT
Dear Wim,
> 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.
My point was that the social pattern changed dramatically for the
immigrant's children. You take the broad view; my view was narrower.
There are social patterns within social patterns within social
patterns. Which pattern you choose depends on the level of abstraction
you choose.
> 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.
I agree language is both a social and intellectual pattern of value and
the linking pin between social and intellectual levels. Language is
necessary for "thinking" or, in Pirsig's terms, the "intellect" as
opposed to the "intellectual." I maintain thinking, intellect and thus
language go back to prehistoric man because that's what separated
humans from animals. Pirsig's suggestion some might claim animals
"think" flies in the face of his own definitions and common sense.
> 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.
As I understand it, Rorty and his acolytes reject all theories of truth other
than their theory that truth is determined by "intersubjective agreement."
The problem is they never specify the "inter-subjects." Are they Nazis,
Communists, Talibans, who? In the diatribe I used as an example, the
inter-subjects whom the author depended on to sanction the truth of his
comparison of Bush and Gingrich to Stalin and Hitler were left-wing
radicals who possess a visceral, irrational hatred of Republicans.
Using Pirsig's standards, such diatribes dependent on political group
support for their authenticity, are low Quality indeed.
> 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)?
Yes. Direct Quality experience is the fundamental absolute standard of
truth for you, for me, and for everyone.To deny that you are the final
arbiter of truth is to deny your individuality and make yourself
susceptible to being brainwashed by the whims of whatever group happens
to hold power at the moment. That's why I object so vigorously to
Rorty's "intersubjective agreement' standard of truth whereby the
individual's obligation to determine his own fundamental truth is
denied. The truth you decided for yourself must be sanctioned by some
group or other, always unidentified as pointed out above. That's
dangerous for a free society based on individual rights and, more
importantly, based on individual responsibilities.
> 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?
But you do have a fundamental, absolute standard of truth in that
you've adopted "my Dutch truth standards." My own political truth
standards, obviously shared by many others, are "American truth
standards," ably presented in our Declaration of Independence and many
other documents of our Founding Fathers in case anyone wants to know
what those standards are, standards currently rejected by many
individuals who associate themselves with leftist groups.
> 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.
Depends on what you mean by "relevant." If they are relevant to you
now, I hope it's because you chose them of your own free will, not
because some group or other forced you to accept them. There's
currently a battle going on in American college campuses between the
dominant liberal faculties who have the power to impose their views on
students and students who object to such pressures. With all the talk
on campuses about the benefits of diversity and tolerance, there's
little diversity of thought or tolerance for any views other than what
is deemed by "intersubjective agreement" among professors and
administrators to be correct. Another example of a danger to a free
society.
> 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.
I received your summary and very much appreciate your taking the time
and trouble to answer my request. By doing so, it's much easier to
identify your fundamental premises. I thank you. I may have more to
say about it later.
Best 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 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 16:46:34 GMT