IRC log started Fri Jan 24 22:00 Good evening people. I presume most of you here will have read Dr Hull's article at the ARI web-page, "Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism", and also Miss Rand's "Racism" from the _Virtue Of Selfishness_ While the contents of Dr Hull's article will be part of tonight's discussion, I also want to cover something which isn't dealt with by Dr Hull's article. The article merely exposes the evil of multiculturalism and why it should be rejected, but it doesn't cover one key element which must be considered when formulating any attack upon multiculturalism. I intend to show you how to disarm the "I'm not a racist but." trap. Down to business. Q: What is a race? a group with a given set of genetic physical characteristics <> Legendre nods. Group of people who have some physical characterstics in common, related genetically. I got these from the World Book Dictionary: "Any one of the major divisions of mankind." "A group of persons connected by common descent or origin." I don't think we need mention examples. Race is a collection of physiological features thatconstitue a certain"look" or appearance. However, there is no actual genetic thing called race. there is a continuum of features in humanity. Races can be genetically recognized. You call tell the race of a person from a blood sample, Joe. Subetai: absolutely not. there s no blood sample test. But there is, Joe. do you want to use the def. that includes geography and culture in determinging race or do you want to keep it physical? OK, It is based on appearance etc, which are genetically inherited Q: What is racism? also, it is a continnum. what do you call a Somali or ethiopian, black or white? Is a thai or Uzbeck oriental or white? Ascribing moral worth (or lack of value) to someone because of his race alone. racism is the attachment of moral or politicalsignificance to a person's ancestry Or intellectual. Racism is a synthesis of collectivism and determinism. Jeff: that's its origins, not what it is. Betsy had it right. - Racism is the idea that race is a basis on which to judge people. You're right. - Racism often includes the idea that there is a hierarchy of races, the most superior at the top and the most inferior at the bottom. - Racism often leads to discrimination and prejudice on the basis of racial characteristics. Q: Why is racism bad? It denies that people have volition. the abandonment of rational judgement of others. Sube: mhm Legendre: There is no correlation between a person's value and his heredity. One need only look as deep as the skin in to juge someones worth makes a person responsible for other's actions, not responsible for his own. Good, Joe Betsy: how is that bad for the racist? Racism denies individual identity by trying to make the race as the main source of identity, thus eliminating the individual qua individual from consideration; a denial of the fact that individuals possess the facultys of reason and volition. The faculty of reason is the same as freedom of the will. Reason is for the individual to use, not the race, so this denial leads to the wiping out of man's most essential attribute in favour of superficialities common to members of a racial group. People shape their own character by the choices they make. Racism attributes mental characterstics to people independently of the choices they make. So it denies volition. Sube: good. A host of bad consequences also follow from this. Q: Examples anyone? Affirmative Action. Slavery. (in the US) 'False Consciousness' of those who disagree with their 'leaders' ethnicism, or the attachment of culture to race. Legendre: Most racists seek cheap pseudo-self-esteem based on their race and not what they have, in fact, made of their own lives. Joe: Good, we'll get to that a bit later on Betsy: Yes. What detrimental effects does racism have for the racist? self- sacrifice: if values are dirived from the race, than that race and value-system mut be obeyed (especially if oyu have no volition). joe that's the group vs false consciousness thing What's the "false consciousness" thing, Bill? The racist cannot earn real self-esteem all by himself. He is dependent on what others of his race do. Betsy: anything else? A 'p' word? :) sube, to disagree with your assigned leader means that one is often labled as either a traitor or just out of his mind Racism also suppresses one's own volition. If something nonessential rules one's principles of selection in making judgments of others, one isn't gathering knowledge. The validity of one's own conclusions is undercut. Not possible to act on a rational basis towards the others involved. Bill: But why "false consciousness" - consciousness of what? that's the term they use Mencken: excellent. When one denies the raw materials for reason, choices are arbitrary and make no sense. Free will is inefficacious. ?? The general reason why racism is bad is that self-interest requires the virtue of justice, that each man be given what he deserves, and each man must be considered as an individual, NOT as a member of some group. The denial of reason and consequently of free will thus denies the foundation of justice, making justice impossible for the racist to practice. Racists can't ever be hero worshippers, because they deny individuals have volition and are responsible for their own character and achievment. We need principles to plan and live long range, and racism undercuts this. This can be observed in the fact that most racists are: bitter, ornery, cynical, mean-spirited. I've never encountered a happy, benevolent racist. Lengendre: That's the least of the racist's problems. Most racists are such losers that their only hope of feeling good is to identify with other people. Brad: Racists are usually pretty stupid, too. The stereotype pf the red-neck bigot is not too far off the mark. Hero *worship* in the sense used in Rand's esthetics is secondary, really. One can't identify what or who is heroic in the first place. Yup. When racism is operative, that is. What did Miss Rand have to say about racism as such? This is taken from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, p402 Mencken: I would say that hero worship is an important central aspect of a rational man's life -- it is his way of continually affirming his own values, by seeking to find and contemplate those who purely exemplify his ideals, and achieve success. "Racism is the lowest and most crudely primitive form of collectivism." I think we shold not overemhasize the superior racist. Most racism world wide simply sees the other ethnic groups as different (morally, mentally), not necessarily inferior. BradA: It's essential for the productive and rational spirit, yes; my point is that racism (the collective impulse) strikes earlier in the philosophic sense, back at epistemology. Joe: But if you want to segregate those other groups, you must think yours has more value. Subetai: ok. The self-esteem argument is evidently more important that I thought. This has given me more to think about (in my own time). What else did Miss Rand say? "Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its *content*) is inherited; that a man's convictions, values and character are determined before he is born." "Racism negates two aspects of a man's life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination." joe: There is a powerful psychological element of racism, which is typically the desire to gain unearned value, through association by race -- race is the criteria chosen, because it is one of the most crudely perceptible means of differentiating people into groups. I think it's important to include "intelligence" in that because it's not immediately obvious. joe: That what is different is inferior *because one doesn't know about it* is the root impulse. Most don't want to think about what's necessary for rational judgments. If it's what one hasn't mastered or understood, it's not worth thinking about ... that's one strong impulse. You also don't have to _DO_ anything to belong to a race -- and you can't be denied membership in a race either. Betsy: Yes, I'll get to that shortly (Leg, the S-I issue can also be used to degrade the creative member telling him that his accomplishments are due to his being part of the race. <> Mencken wonders, in a sidebar, whether Rand's point about content-not-inherited applies in regard to what shapes sexual orientation. Betsy: one could be of mixed race. Betsy: In that way, racism is a way of achieving *value* without *achieving* value Mencken did you use an electric or mechanical opener on that can of worms? Kpart: mhm, the grinding down of individuals. Joe: It's ok, I wont go down that windy garden path tonight, but you are welcome to discuss it later <> Mencken smiles Here is what Dr Hull had to say: "Racism is the notion that one's race determines one's identity. It is the belief that one's convictions, values, and character are determined not by the judgement of one's mind but by one's anatomy or "blood." " To the degree that sexual orientation is non-volitional, it shares the same characteristic as racism. Sexism is the same thing. Brad: this is true, but let's move on Q: Now, what is a culture? The sum of institutions, organizations and products of a group of men. culture is a collection of values as manifested or embodied in institutions, arts, and other societal things. An invalid concept. It treats such a sum of actions, groups, ideas, etc. as one entity subject to description and manipulation, when it doesn't exist. Knowledge is also part of the culture. And also technology. It can be summed up in three words (nouns) ..... Philosophy, in a crude sense that's gotten some degree of permanence by long tradition. knowledge and technology *are* products Sube: Yes. BradA: they are part of. brad: those are all effects. What causes a culture to set up a certain institution, or organise themselves a given way? Rather, what in a culture makes its followers set up institutions and organise themselves in certain ways Beliefs are philosophy. They're manifested in different ways, including what's acceptable socially (behavior), what's esteemed (kinds of art), etc. Legend: their philosophy. Sube: Yes, that's it. You said earlier that individuals are responsible for causation and organization. How can a "culture" have "causes" to "set up" anything? Joe: that's basically another way of saying their culture. What does a culture/ primitive philosophy consist of? Culture generally includes the products and embodiments of a philosophy. Leg: The tribes traditionas. Mencken: I corrected myself there, but thank you for pointing it out anyway. A culture organices because of the need of a common effort against an an hostile environment. The environment is indifferent. A culture is simply a set of customs, arts, and belief systems. You did indeed, I missed it. But how a "culture" can have characteristics is something that still escapes me. And roles, and symbols, and many more things. Legendre: Those are the referents in reality for the concept 'culture' -- definitions should be based on referents, analysis is a separate matter. Mencken: a culture is a sum of indivdual things that have characteristics, therefore it has characteristics too. Mencken: easy: the sense of life is an obvious one, whether it considers men as proud beings in a more or less benevolent universe, or low creatures in a malevolent universe. This is plain to see in the arts. Compare medieval art with ancient Greek art joe: In Rand's sense of conceptual structure, I don't see the "common denominator" in aggregating so many individuals. The *cause* of a culture is the values held by the individuals comprising it, especially the values of the more ambitious, intelligent and productive amongst them. Legendre: so are you saying a culture is a sum of the concretiztions of the abstractions held by a group of people? As Legendre pointed out, the referents in reality are differences in the existence/prevalence of the products of man's consciousness, such as art, social customs, etc. Across different groups. And values are the product of ideas, which are themselves causally irreducible beyond 'free will' -- someone formulated ideas, others adopted them. Joe: not quite. The belief systems etc people hold manifest themselves in their actions, particularly arts, given what art is. Especially in a polyglot group such as those in the U.S., one can see many smaller sub-"cultures." I do every day. Vastly different ones. Mencken: So you're saying that the dividing line has become blurred with greater mobility and mixing. Or are you saying culture is an invalid concept to begin with? There is an "American culture" somewhere there in the "melting pot." Mencken: Everything that exists has characteristics. That is the thing which differentiates existents from non-existents. Brad: but how are those values implanted? People are inculcated with the local belief system and values. Cultures are almost self-sustaining - except the one kind of culture which decries such inculcation.... Subetai: More the latter. I don't see the conceptual dividing lines. Any two or more people may share ideas, interests, beliefs, but to abstract this into a "culture" creates an entity that isn't there. Mencken: culture is not identified blanket-wise over a given geographic area. it is possible that different cultures can exist in the same area. Each culture is identified as such by identifying the people with similar values, etc. Lengendre: The values of a society are spread by teaching them to children. Mencken: it is understood by the concept of culture that there is 1) a range, and 2) that persons inthe region assotiated withthat culture may not even belong to it. It interested DeTocqueville 175 years ago that Americans formed huge numbers of *associations* on common interests. And still do. That came from not pretending to a common "culture," from what I see. Mencken: I think there are two points to the contrary - (1) as Brad said, it goes beyond two people sharing values, it's self-perpetuating after it reaches a certain size (2) it can be seen as a statistical aggregate of prevalent beliefs. Mencken: but that itself is a culture! Mencken: Maybee it was an expression of the individualism that is very much a part of "American culture." Legendre: Most people do not originate basic ideas and values. They select them from the ones presented as they grow. Thus, cultures tend to propagate themselves. But innovators and 'cutural immigrants' add changes, as well as the new mix of selection each generation chooses. Mencken, applying your logic to my room would leave me w/o any furniture. I could be dense (wouldn't be the first time) but I see the same slipperiness with "culture" as I do with "society." That is, in any given society at a given time, some beliefs will be widely held. They're generally the basis of "culture" as it's commonly identified. Betsy: yes. But remember how some (ie most) don't truck with questioning of those values. The belief systems they impart, particularly thinking methods, may also make such questioning very difficult, and the answers almost impossible to find. "Furniture" abstracts from concretes. Abstracting from personal beliefs or qualities can be done but it's harder to do the conceptual work. Which doesn't mean it's impossible "Culture" isn't anything more than the values of individuals, but their interaction has interesting effects. OK, moving on a bit. Q: Before we go on to multiculturalism, I ask you, what is the original link between race and culture? I can tell you now that it is no longer anywhere near as strong as it used to be, but it is still around to varying degrees. Mencken: Metaphysically, only entities exist. But they do exist in identifiable causal and reciprocal relations on various levels of complexity. It is possible to treat these organized systems of entities or their attributes, as if they were entities, since they also can be observed to obey regular laws. It shouldn't be that hard to find. Different races developed in or migrated to certain areas of the world and pretty much stayed in isolation until recently, giving them the opportunity to develop their own distinct cultures? Sube: yes. The link is geography. Racial groups and sub-groups were initially created because groups of people became separated by distance and other geographical obstacles. People married locally, and rarely if ever saw people from outside their local area. Chart this over the course of tens of generations, more like hundreds, and a new race or racial subset is formed through in-breeding. BradA: It's also easy to reify a concept like "culture" into something that's cut off from any referents. That's what I see the "multiculturalist" types tossing around. Geography produces the same effect in cultures, which is why cultures are linked to particular races. People found it hard to get from one area to another, so there was little regular exchange of ideas between peoples, just as there was little exchange of genes. Thus the culture of one geographical area developed in more or less isolation from others. Thus geography is the reason why cultures are associated with particular racial groups. okay :) Wait a second, i want to point something out. Part of what becomes the culture can then easily be those genetic characteristics -- the error of associating anyone with black skin as though they had some indelible connection to African culture(s), etc. Let him keep going, Joe. We'll discuss it in a few minutes. 'culture' is itself a highly abstract concept -- it is not usually used itself, but with a degree of specificity, with regard to which group of men, with regard to what aspects of culture, etc. Q: What is multiculturalism? Legendre: Almost all areas since the Neolithic Age have been stirred up by traders or nomadic peoples. I don't see the isolation and autarchy you describe being very common. Legendre: The error of asserting that all cultures have equal value In isolated islands, to some extent, but not otherwise. Legendre: there is a misconception that the various cultures of the world (esp. the 3rd world) are all varied and different (see your ref. to geo. isolation) the fact is that tey are all the same- the same values, etc., what varies is level of advancement. Mencken: 'Society' is a perfectly valid concept, which admittedly gets a abused quite a bit, but is no less valid as a result. The commandment to consider all cultures morally equivalent to each other, regardless of their actual philosophical worth. Phil: yes. I'm a bit more wordy than Phil. :) Joe: the closer people are, the closer their cultures will be. Joe: but consider say Chinese culture compared to Viking Legendre: There are oftentimes strong links between race and culture, merely by the fact that many of a certain race or ethnicity tend to live relatively homogenously in an area, and therefore tend to comprise a culture. Brad: my point exactly. Multiculturalism is a system which claims to judge all cultures equally, and appears to demand respect for all culture accordingly. In practice, however, it explicitly attacks western culture, particularly pro-reason philosophies, precisely because it judges reason as being no more valid than other belief systems. Also, significantly, if racism is part of the culture, then it will tend to self-selecting for race. Legendre: no i think the backward third world cultures are pretty much the same, whether inafrica, asia, or waht not, as aree the intemediate, semi-advanced cultures, and so on. "All cultures are equal, but some cultures are more equal than others." Joe: That depends on what degree of complexity and advancement exists, I guess. The more primitive a culture is, the more it will resemble other primitive cultures. Contact with other cultures may show us which of our beliefs or values (accepted from ours, but not all questioned) may be contingent. Joe: but as they advance, they start to go off in different directions. Q: Why is multiculturalism wrong? Some have confused the value of making another "culture" a subject of proper study with the value of that "culture" itself, in a philosophic sense. Mencken: Traders typically travel to other parts, but remain attached to their cultures. Historically, members of different cultures traded products, but the cultural cross-influence was limited. Of course, this changes dramatically when one of the products exchanged is ideas, esp. philosophy. Legendre: but the more advanced a culture is, the more it will resemble other advanced cultures (and U.S. culture) look whats happening inthe world today. Multiculturalists tend to dislike western culture because it insists that anything unreasonable is wrong while other cultures don't claim their beliefs as holy writ. Which ignores the facts about other cultures. Mencken, what is the "value of a culture itself" ? Legendre: Because, in reality, cultures which have reason as a chief component are superior to those that do not Joe/Mencken: but according to Richard Bernstein, there is no "asian" culture that is homogenous, but different groups which can bee seen clearly to anyone who is aware of it. Multiculturalism is cultural value-agnosticism, except for Western culture, which is Really Bad. BradA: Tell that to Marco Polo (one direction) or Genghis Khan (the other). Limited cultural cross-influence? I doubt it. And they did exchange ideas as well, by the way. Can the Brad/Mencken off topic arg. stop for awhile? The arguments against MCism are good. multiculturalism, besides being racist as discussed before, is bigoted: it denies the moral right of an individual in a culture to legitimately be able to acquire any or part of another culture, i.e. he must stick to his own culture -- and usually they mean a folklorized version of it. Multiculturalism sets up as ideal ethnic and cultural diversity for its own sake. It is a form of group worship, and had no concern for individuals, only groups. Phil2: I'm not so sure it's off topic. We may be dealing with aggregates of "cultures" that aren't well defined, and that may be part of the problem. Also part of the fuel for "multicultural" manipulation. Adherence to the group, which eliminates individuality, eliminates individual thought, so on what basis should an individual choose his group to join? joe: cultures vary widely in all their particulars. On a more abstract level, we can reduce these differences to fundamental philosophic which predominate. The easiest group to join is the race, as no thought is involved or required. The final result is people who think certain things not because they are true, but because people of their race are "supposed" to think those things. Objectivists of all people should be sensitive to using terms that others have set up. We are properly skeptical of Rousseau's use of "society." We ought to be of "culture." Mencken: Good point. Linguistics and Anthropology are both fascinating and valuable disciplines. Legendre: On the basis of the best match between his own philosophy/sense of life and the identity of a particular culture, e.g., someone from China who chooses to move to America because they value living life independently Phil: Yes, I didn't say the race was the only group to join. As Dr Hull points out, taking these things from racial identity is a shortcut, a shortcut which actually has the effect of short-circuiting the mind. Q: How is multiculturalism a front for west-bashing and anti- reason? Legendre: Race is the simplest short-circuit, yes, but few are so clueless in the arts of deception as to admit they're using it. Euphuisms, as the original Mencken called them, abound. The MCists usually claim that Western Culture (i.e., reason) is given TOO MUCH importance. and that it's worldwide reach is because of some 'unfair' method. (eg oppression) Betsy: that's because "multiculturalism" is a euohamism for evasion of the importance of reason. Legendre: Oh, that's easy: two ways to destroy something good: 1) attack the object; 2) glorify it's irrational antitheses MCism is a western perversion, and like many western perversions, can be traced back to Kant. Multiculturalism is simply #2. As if the MC'ers really care about the two-bit irrational cultures they embrace. Those cultures are convenient tools. Brad: re #2 <-- Kant :) Kant was a philosophic disaster, but I don't see how this particular outlook can be pinned on him. Rousseau seems a much more likely source. Don't attack greatness. Just claim the mediocre is great. Very Toohey. Usually, western MC's have some pet peeve against their own culture. Commonly, it's the fact that western culture leaves people pretty much to their own resources. There's nothing to fall back on such as support by the group. They're running scared. Legendre: Elsworth Toohey, I thought. :) They see other cultures as making more allowances for mistakes. They're wrong. Kant said reality was a collective delusion. Add in obvious differences in race and culture, and you get the notion of multiple competing collectives :) Sube: "It Takes a Village" Brad: who do you think ET is based on? Legendre: I had not really realized that! Since reason is allegedly limited, and reality subjective, each culture, ie each way of dealing with reality, is as good as any. Kant equated means with content, thus leading to equating race with culture. Result: multiculturalism. Toohey based on Kant? Oh, come on now. We've run a bit over the time limit, folks, but we're almost done with the scheduled part of the discussion. Mencken: Yes, right down to the physical attributes :) Kant didn't appear or act one-tenth as sinister as Rand's character did. That made Kant's influence much more insidious. Kant says we can't see reality "in itself" without the distortion created by our minds, thus making reason limited and subjective, leaving us without means for dealing with reality, except by means of emotion. Western notions of the supremacy of reason and the independence of reality, which by this fact alone already cast doubt on the validity of non-reason cultures, are thus denigrated as arrogant and imperialistic, with reason as nothing more than a western prejudice. If you observe, method #2 (glorify the evil) is actually a vastly more efficacious way to attack the good than outright attack. Menken: Well, only to the uninformed observer. [MikeH] Mike Henson, Programmer/Analyst for DivEn Consulting. The reason, is that with outright attack, the object of your hostility is manifestly evident, and its defenders can come to its defense, and the attackers are plainly identified. Hi Mike. Q: How about opposition to objections to multiculturalism, what is it based on? But attack by counterpoint-promotion, is viciously subversive, and requires a rather abstract and savvy identification. Leg, fear that the pro-western advocates are right What these defenders of non western cultures do is fail to identify the social and psychological (not to mention political and econ.) brutality inthese cultures. It is also a strategy of cowards. I always took Toohey to be based on some particularly loathsome columnists of Rand's acquaintance who were raging collectivists. They abounded in NYC. Rand inserted her disclaimer at the start of the book for a definite reason. Bill: yes, but what is their weapon to dismiss opposition? and that they will convince those they currently have dominance disagree with me and you are a racist. Bill: yup Easy: by equating race with culture, the multiculturalists end up saying (in so many words) that to attack a culture is to attack a race. Mencken: Toohey had many characteristics in common with Kant, as I understand him: conventionally upstanding citizen, learned, witty, socially popular, a lecturer. To attack irrational ideas is to unjustly attack good people. Legendre: which is why a lot of otherwise good peole get sckered into supporting MCism Betsy: yes. This is from Kant's equation of means of awareness with the content. Mencken: Kant didn't act sinister to most people. He never acted sinister to Dominique -- she rather enjoyed him, at least in her malevolent-universe carnation. (they thinkthat is waht you have to do to be a non-racist) Merely saying you;re not racist is NOT enough. The direct equation of race with culture is something you will have to blast if you wish to go up against multiculturalists. If you fail to do this, yet make attacks against multiculturalism, then you run a great risk of falling into the trap of saying, or at least implying, "I am not a racist but." Even if you don't explicitly say it, that is what will be read into your arguments, even if you say you wish no harm to members of other races. You wont be considered the Nazi killer kind of racist, but of the polite and condescending kind. You've probably already discussed this, but MC is based on the notion that groups of people create their own reality, and none is "better" than the other. <> Mencken still sees a mistake in even admitting that discussion of "cultures" is a valid cognitive enterprise. To work with such an ill-defined concept is to concede half the battle. I always like to explain my own views on race: I love the existence of race, since it makes human society more interesting. The only way to avoid this trap is to explicitly mention the multiculturalists' equation of race with culture, and then tear it asunder. In other words, tell your readers of the difference between race and culture, and how A is A for everyone, not just White European Males. I think it's good to point out the relationship between culture and philosophy at the beginning, Mencken. Sets the discussion on more firm grounds. Legendre: I'm not sure that's a fundamental however. There are those who would equally say that attacking a culture regardless of race is bad, for the same reason -- they equate Race X or Culture X with people directly. Attack the Race/Culture, attack the person. They think in personal attack, not idea attack Mencken: What do you think of Rand's discussion of American culture and sense of life in her essay "Don't Let It Go?" menken: "culture" is a valid concept. it simply means the psycho-epistemology of certain groups of people, usually based on geographic areas. That concludes the scheduled part of the discussion. Please continue to talk about whatever you please. Betsy: That essay, while hugely appealing in its style and suggestions, always bothered me. She talked more about American and European "cultures" when, as she herself said, the *ideas* were the important matter. Thanks, John. :) Phil: They challenge the notion altogether that you can evaluate cultures normatively (except for Western culture, which is Really Bad) -- they are social subjectivists. Phil: I sent in a poorly written letter to my local newspaper saying just that, and the local leftist MCist busybody hasn't written anything to the newspaper since Except on the matter of Western culture, in which case they are hardcore intrinsicists. Menken: The ideas *are* the culture. No group of people, moreover, can have a sense of life. Even when applied to individuals, that idea (a valid one, I believe) still needs some conceptual foundations. Thanks John -- very good. Phil: my main point is, if you are going to attack MCism in mainstream means, ie through Letters to Editors etc, then you will have to tear apart the MCist equation of race with culture. If you have more educated audiences, then you can mention Kant etc Mencken: I read that as an endorsement of commonly held IDEAS. TomM: Not for most people who talk about culture. Many items of daily life that vary in less-than-philosophic detail are included. Legendre: Ok Anyway, MCism fails t take into account the way people and cultures actually behave. In many places, the people living there themselves arestarting to think their culture is lousy, and are changing. for example, in the more developed asian countries, young people are rejecting the ideas of arranged marriage, and want to chose their own mate for personal reasons. Mencken: A group sense-of-life merely means the elements of sense-of-life shared by all (or most) in the group. It is a perfectly valid, and useful concept. Betsy: I'd like to read it that way, but that essay was one of a few occasions where Rand's love of Americans' attributes carried her away a bit. Joe: As I said, MCism is a perversion among westernised people menken: that's true. culture includes even the particulars of a region. However, one can not equate race with culture. Cultural styles are open to individual acceptance. Joe: if you want a good read, try Richard Bernstein's "Dictatorship of Virtue". He points out that damn few MCists have heard anything more about other cultures than a few charming anecdotes :) BradA: But how far can one take this? You can't see inside others' heads to find ideas, in most cases, let alone "a preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics," as Rand defined sense of life. joe: Exactly -- this is an excellent demonstration of the fact that *volition* is the primary cause of culture -- they aren't autonomously self-replicating platonic existents. You go to the cultures the western MC's think are so great, you'll find fanatical devotion to their own stupidities. They don't think much of western culture. menken: You do it as with everything else...observation. Somehow, technology and wealth magically appear there. Mencken: I've lived in the states, and I thought her essay emminently accurate in its portrayal, at least in California where I lived. Brad: ESPECIALLY in California. MCism uses the legitimate attacj on the evil of racism as a front for engendering skepticism TomM: Ah, but one can only observe *actions.* Menken: One can observe what they say and do, which is all one needs to access their psycho-epistemology. Mencken: You can also ask individual people what they value and why. Legendre: excellent point. Would *they* be willing to live with forced marriages, genital mutilationof women, and other widspread cultural practices? (theiranswer is probably "*I* wouldn't but they don't seem to mind") Mencken: A sense-of-life is communicated in innumerable ways -- it is precisely because it is such a fundamental aspect of a person's character (in respect of the widest nature of man and existence), that it is reflected in every volitional aspect of a man. At least among those of European descent. Rand's portrayal of American attributes was (and is) accurate. Whether one can set up an American vs European "sense of life" is another matter. Those not of European descent are enjoined to take on the cultures of their racial group Betsy: I figured so, but that is the only place I have more than passing acquaintance with. Menken: Ok, i'll bite...what do you think is wrong with her assessment? Betsy: You can ask, true, but except with intimates, few are consistently honest, in my experience. (Sometimes, of course, not even with intimates.) Betsy: The only other place I've been that matches it, is Whistler, BC. What a delightful, wonderful place to live that was. :) Joe: Those things you mentioned are the things which are holding total acceptance of MCism back. Mencken: You can compare what people say with what they do and with your own introspections. Eventually, you weed out the false claims. TomM: As to ideas, nothing. As to positing a common "American sense of life," I don't see that as valid. Rand was carried away by qualities she admired. That doesn't mean that a ghost of them exists somewhere among Americans in general. It is no accident that Existentialism is so strongly associated with the French culture. There are rather measurable differences in cultures. aren't the *qualities* she admired the ghosts? There is certainly a difference between general American and Canadian culture, at least in some important respects. (Our popular cultures are very close.) Menken: You have to perform differentiation and integration. compare americans with other natives and you will see a difference. Joe: but with the equation of race with culture, people are attacking cultures, beign branded racist, and then losing their fear of being racist. tkTad: She forgot Occam's Razor, and created a cultural "sense of life" beyond rational necessity. Legende: its a mess. Joe: For example, five years ago I don't think any MP would have the guts to stand up and complain about Asians, but that is precisely what we have in the form of one (allegedly) Honourable Pauline Hanson. Mencken: Do you claim then that there is no necessary connection between a culture and a sense of life? While individuals differ, when someone is raised an American the odds are that he has certain values as compared to someone from ... Cambodia. Joe: Another example. The mayor of a small town (Port Lincoln) said children of mixed race marriages were mongrels. The councillors walked out, and new elections had to be called. The mayor and his friends won *more* council seats. Exactly. Inductively look from reality MikeH: An individual can possess a sense of life as a preconceptual integration. To create a concept for this across many different individuals is not valid, to me. Not enough is commensurate. Mencken: have you ever lived outside the US? you will notice that "culture" ie philosophy pervades an entire country, from the way people deal with each other to the way they drive and feel to everything else. It is an absolute necessity to identify these culture-wide phenomena. The same problem exists with the idea of a "culture." Mencken: That's a word salad. What are you saying? joe: You said "'culture' i.e. philosophy" ... the common notion of "culture" goes far beyond philosophy. Some ideas certainly can be predominant in any group. MikeH: Please don't use "word salad" to condescend. I'm using Rand's theory of universals. Where is the Conceptual Common Denominator between each person's "preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics," as Rand defined sense of life? well in the same sense you could speak of *society* as non-existent, but this would refer to the idea that society does not exist as a seperate entity . But the concept society does have an existential referent Betsy: the self-esteem question is something I will have to consider more. Thanks for that input back there. Mencken: but there has to be a predominant set of ideas in a group, otherwise that group would be unabnle to interact with itself. There must be a "protocall", if you will. To speak of such a thing in a "culture" is to match up what doesn't have enough common measurements. tkTad: What is that referent, as you see it? Menken: do you think there is no difference in how the world is conceptualized between, say, Objectivists and kantians? That difference is psycho-epistemological, which leads to both sense of life and culture. the relationship of the individual that make up the society ie their shared geographic location and *common* customs, laws et Menck: What's the CCD of any combination? That's what any culture is -- a combination, not a concept. +s Mencken: even a simple example: when you walk into a business office you shake hans withother people and look them in the eye; this is accepted inyour culture. but in other cultures this may be seen as aggressive of in poortaste. Common referents in nonverbal language are needed and do exist. That, again, isn't the whole of a "culture" as most use that word. Joe: and even how near you stand when talking to someone. Betsy: i'm not sure I agree with that. You are saying "american culture" is not a concept different from "german culture"? TomM: Those difference do exist. But it's related to *conceptual* functioning, or lack of it. Sense of life speaks of the *preconceptual.* noemi: absolutely! menken: Each geographical interaction region will have a set of portocals (as someone mentioned). these modes of mental operation are the culture.