On 11/2/06, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My doubts about Miller's conclusion sympathize with the criticisms such cultures as the Chinese have of the American. Is our complexity, our lack of innate goodness truly the standard for all mankind, or is there another way of looking at these matters -- a way we've forgotten?
Interesting question, this. I wonder if the problem isn't what some would call our American hyperindividualism. If we start with the assumption that society is nothing more than a collection of individuals and all value depends on their idiosyncracies, then conversation is reduced to "I see it this way" versus "Well, I see it that way," with little hope of persuasion and nothing left but to walk away or resort to force. Historically most societies, Chinese, Japanese, old European, whatever, assume values and principles that everyone is supposed to share, at least within their national boundaries. International agreements and laws assume, in addition, that some values and principles transcend national boundaries. That, however, is only an extension of the basic proposition that you, I, everyone who counts as one of "us" shares a common framework to which we can turn when attempting to adjudicate which of our claims is closer to something all can agree on. The values and principles to which we resort transcend the idiosyncracies that make us the individuals we are. They give us a structure in relation to which we can all be eccentric without either flying apart or beating each other's heads in. John -- John McCreery The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN http://www.wordworks.jp/ US CITIZEN ABROAD? YOU'RE THE DECIDER! Register to Vote in '06 Elections www.VoteFromAbroad.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html