[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[MarshaV]

/A

It sounds like what you mean by 'social relativism' is a culture being 
socially oriented rather than intellectually oriented?   I was looking 
for your definition, which I don't think is clear yet.     

As far as the World mess:  I think it will stay a mess until the subject/
object point-of-view is transcended.  Having said that, within the MoQ 
intellectual patterns are a higher value than social patterns.  

As far as your statements about who has got the moral high ground,
I could argue with your comments, but I will pass.  I've given up my 
political soap box.   


Marsha 











On Oct 28, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Alexander Jarnroth wrote:

> Marsha
> 
> I think many people in "The West", at least here, seem to have given up the
> idea of intellectual supremacy and accepted the notion of just "social
> supremacy". By doing so, I believe, they have also lost their intellectual
> supremacy. What they should have done, was to have faith in their
> intellectual supremacy and fight only at that level, with words rather than
> weapons. Then I think the populations of Muslim countries by themselves
> would embrace the principle of intellectual supremacy over social patterns.
> When Europe conquered Muslim countries originally it wasn't, of course,
> because of any intellectual supremacy. They did it for the same reason that
> people from Muslim countries now migrates to Europe. That reason was: at the
> time the demographic growth in Europe was much larger than in the rest of
> the world: not the same is true of Muslim countries. These migration
> patterns, then, would have the biological "the right of the strongest" kind
> of moral, just as the colonialism had, and would then just be a biological
> pattern, having nothing much to do with neither social nor intellectual
> patterns.
> 
> One reason this question is so much discussed here in Sweden right now, is
> that a nationalistic party has taken seats in the parliament. I, and many
> others, doesn't really like them. But I think that they criticize these
> "nationalist" at the wrong basis: that is from the social relativist point
> of view. What these nationalists want to stop all migration from
> non-European countries and that we should try to save "Swedish culture" from
> the "threat of Islamism".
> I know people from both sides of this conflict and I think that they both
> are right in different ways. MoQ gives a way to overcome that "cleft".
> The situation is kind of the same with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
> Israel, being morally superior, should neither fight with the "right of the
> strongest" nor with any kind of "social patterns" against the Hamas,
> Hezbollah or Iran. What they OUGHT to do is showing by example the supremacy
> of intellect over social values. Then, I think, the populations of
> Palestine, Lebanon and Iran would be strengthen against their governments or
> "pseudo-governments". This is actually a particular case when I thing the
> MoQ has improved my understanding greatly.
> Both sides are doing the wrong thing, but for different reasons and from
> different perspectives. 
> 
> /A
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of MarshaV
> Sent: den 28 oktober 2010 12:38
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value
> 
> 
> /A,
> 
> I agree that a cultural relativism that determines all perspectives have
> equal value is ridiculous, but that is an exaggerated point-of-view.  
> 
> Seems to me the MoQ judges a culture based on patterns, and there is always
> a mix of social and intellectual patterns within a culture.  I imagine Islam
> is a mix of social and intellectual patterns just like Western cultures.  
> 
> And why do you think the West has invaded and is occupying the Middle East?
> For some intellectual principle?  If you think the sole reason for the
> conflict in the MiddleEast is "Islamists are fighting for the social systems
> supremacy over intellect" you might check your 
> own biases.   Seems the U.S. killed some budding democracies 
> when it suited their purposes, and those purposes were not 
> intellectual.      
> 
> imho 
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Alexander Jarnroth wrote:
> 
>> In the way I perceive it, it says that any culture is as good as any
> other.
>> Every pattern of society should be considered a social construction. 
>> I've been arguing a lot with people terming themselves
> "deconstructionists"
>> because they want to free people from social constraints. But to me, 
>> the opposite of construct is destruct. To me the social relativists 
>> are the precursors of these destructionists. In Sweden we have this 
>> debate concerning Muslims and Jews. Those on the Muslim side call the 
>> others "islamophobs" and those on the Jewish side, call the others
> "antisemitists".
>> Those on the Muslim side, says the it's just "social chauvinism" to 
>> say that a state based on democratic principles which propose human 
>> rights and so on, is better than a Islamic state proposing rule by 
>> Sharia. That's social relativism to them Human rights, democracy and 
>> the such, to them, is just a social construct.
>> These "deconstructionists" on the other hand, seem just to hate 
>> everything in society. In Sweden they are left wing, and they love to 
>> use violence and vandalism against almost anything. They try to induce 
>> some kind of social uprising and the destruction of the state.
>> 
>> From my former stance, however, I couldn't really debate them. Of 
>> course I could say to the deconstructionists, that without a state, 
>> most people living today would die, because they are materially dependent
> on the system.
>> But what could I say to the social relativist?
>> To me it doesn't matter if you celebrate Christmas, Pesach or Eid 
>> al-Fitr - in that case I could be "relativist". But what concerns the 
>> freedom of speech and such things, I can't even try to grasp it. I can 
>> try to "understand" how people living in other systems think, but I 
>> wouldn't like to call them "as right" as anyone else.
>> Take, for instance, the speech made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Lebanon 
>> recently. You could take any mentions of "God" and replace it with
> "the/our"
>> social system, and it would still make perfect sense - it would make 
>> even more sense.
>> Seen through the MoQ, these Islamists are fighting for the social 
>> systems supremacy over intellect - but according to MoQ it should be 
>> the other way around.
>> Suddenly I have an argument against these relativist, who claims that 
>> it doesn't really matter. That freedom of speech and the such are just 
>> social patterns, as good as any other.
>> 
>> /A
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
>> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of MarshaV
>> Sent: den 28 oktober 2010 11:44
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value
>> 
>> 
>> /A,
>> 
>> What is your definition of social relativism?
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha   
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___