[ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures

[Lee Corbin]

Stefano writes

> 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.

Right, okay.

>> because in a *number* of ways,  [emphasis added by me now]
>> 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".

Of course, the terms "superior" and "inferior" standing without qualifiers
are necessarily very rough. The Christian soldiers of Spain marching 
into the valley of Mexico were awe-struck at the huge city and its
architectural accomplishments. But not for an instant did they doubt
that they were Spanish, and therefore superior, not even to mention
Christian. Yet unless one of them was grossly dishonest, he would have
to admit that in *some ways* the Aztecs were their superiors. 

>> 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.

Oh, I myself don't ever make that particular mistake, to my knowledge.
Really.  For example, unlike the "enlightened liberal" who sees penal
institutions and places to arrogantly reform and "correct" the objectively
improper behavior of the broken or misguided prisoner, I see the
prisoners as my equals. They have one set of values and I (and we!)
have another set.  So it's merely them or us.

I really do avoid the words "better" or "superior" or such when speaking
of us vs. them, and---to take the current situation---it makes me *very*
uncomfortable to hear people talking about Arabic culture as inferior.
In tribal conflicts, "we" will want to defeat them, and they'll want to defeat
us, but that's it. If someone of my tribe starts talking about us being
"superior" in the abstract, without, for example, specifying that our horses
are faster or that we can throw spears further than they can, I'll want to
correct him.  Because, just as you say, it's not true.

> 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 criterion first, as
> arbitrary as it may be.

If one side has machine guns, and the other side spears, then I
know who'll be superior at war making. The Japanese too, could
easily see after 1853 that they needed to get up to speed. And it
was objectively true (on my usage of words, sorry) that they were
technologically backward.

> 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.

Totally agree.

Lee