[MD] suspended in language

[Steven Peterson]

HI Arlo, Marsha,


> [Platt asked Steve]
> Finally, do you agree with Pirsig's assertion: "Cultures can be graded and
> judged morally according to their contribution to the evolution of life."
> (Lila, 24)
>
> [Arlo]
> I always find it fascinating that those who are most motivated to "grade"
> things, are those that would always rank themselves "number one".
>
> Nonetheless, this assertion is quite problematic, as even something like
> "American culture" or "Chinese culture" rests of generalizations that may or
> may be representative of local communities. Is life in Laramie, Wyoming
> "American culture" or is life in the Bronx?  Is there any non-American
> culture that Platt would rank higher than his own in any capacity? Is
> "Hispanic culture" better in some regards? What about "Lakota culture"? Are
> we ranking blanket statements about cultures on this large scale, or are we
> "grading" specific attributes we assign to various cultures? For example,
> would we give "Hispanic culture" an "A" for familial closeness and "American
> culture" a "C"? Does this generalize too much?
>
> And what is the purpose? What award are some striving to give themselves? If
> we say "Hispanic culture is morally superior to Icelandic culture", what
> does this statement do? Should we consider Icelanders inferior people until
> they "shape up and become more like Hispanics"? Do we dismiss whatever an
> Icelander may do as "pfff.. that's just those inferior people from that
> faraway place"? Does it only matter in cases of extremes, like justifying
> war against Nazi Germany? Or is it just an excuse to pat ourselves on our
> back and get all warm and fuzzy over how morally superior WE are to the
> inferior hordes of OTHERS?  When, how and why should we "grade cultures"?


Steve:
I don't think Pirsig is suggesting that we set up a rating scale for
ranking cultures. As you point out, the problem of identifying a unit
of culture shows the absurdity of such a project.

I think Pirsig's intent in this statement is to deny relativism as the
claim that talking about moral truth only makes sense with respect to
a specifc culture and whatever can be justified within a given culture
is actually true for that culture. For the relativist, truth (ethical
and scientific) is reduced to justification.

Marsha, do you deny this sort of relativism? It sounds like you are
saying that you do. If what you mean is that "everything is related,"
that is a different idea from relativism as I understand the term.
Perhaps a better word for what you are saying is "panrelationalism."

Best,
Steve