[ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures

[Stefano Vaj]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>> but I think that for the purpose of the present discussion we
>> can consider my position as limited to *value* judgment, such
>> as those considering the different "contributions" of civilisations
>> to what one considers, e.g.,  the achievements of our species.
>
> I'm not sure I understand.

I mean: let's drop the issue of whether 2+2=4 is a cultural construct,
and limit ourselves to the fact that "important", "beautiful", "fair",
"crucial" are.

> It's too bad you (probably wisely) cannot enter into an
> epistemological discussion, because in a number of ways,
> the "superiority" of one culture over another is as factual
> as night and day. As I said, though, there is a sliding scale...

One needs however a scale to say that, a scale which necessarily does
not drop from the sky. Where we agree is on the fact that cultures and
civilisations are not "equal", as some naive and politically correct
"multiculturalism" would maintain. Where my position is different is
that I think that each civilisation is "superior" from its own point
of view - which does not prevent me in the least, as a member of a
specific culture where some values and not others have course, to
participate to such unavoidable "bias".

> To take an obviously much more extreme example, the
> same argument might be directed to parents who consider themselves
> "superior" to their three-year-olds.
> It is indeed chauvinistic for them to actually go so far as
> to use force (!) to prevent these children from playing
> in the streets.

Yes. But not matter how frustrated children may be, parents could
never (and should not, for that matter) refrain from pursuing their
*own* point of view on the issue. How could they do otherwise? If you
stop thinking and acting on the basis of a given perspective, you are
not thinking and acting of the basis of somebody's else's, you have
simply changed your own.

> Yes, perhaps only our language here is different. It sounds
> as though you and I would tend to take the same actions
> and support the same policies.

Probably, or at least in most cases. Only, I think one can spare the
need of thinking to be "on the side of the angels" or of some
intrinsic disembodied truth.

For instance, getting back to the crucial  importance of the European
contribution to what... most European and Western contemporaries would
consider as important, such conclusion may well be somewhat
inevitable, but is nevertheless perfectly legitimate, because no
judgment could ever be formed without adopting a criterium first, as
arbitrary as it may be.

And speaking of transhumanism, e..g., I think that perfectly
consistent bioluddists are not "misguided" - sometimes they understand
very well the terms of the alternative - but simply make a number of
choices that are fundamentally different and opposite to my own.

Stefano Vaj