The Truth, and other newspapers

[George61]

And all this time I thought Hamish was a senile, rich bastard...

Chinese language is doomed as a method of communication, along with all other languages that are non-alphabetical, unless it is quickly transformed into pinyin.

Spot-on, mate!!

[Stil]

hamish said:

How many times have you waited, not so patiently in my case, while Chinese people talk for an interminable period about some problem that English speakers can dispose of clearly and completely in a few brief sentences?

I didn't realise this was a English - Chinese thing. I thought it was a man - woman thing.

I'm not sure how this could be done. Writing Mandarin in pinyin is like using the phonetic symbols for writing English. Useful to be sure, but not completely accurate. What happens to other languages like Cantonese, Wu, etc whose pinyin pronunciation would be different? Not to mention local dialects. Characters are often the only way for many Chinese to communicate with each other. Pinyin would have to be written with the tones to make sense and many Chinese people don't know them. They know how to say a word, but the tone is embedded into the word not added to it as we often learn it. Many dialects that are close to putonghua have different tones. The amount of words spelled the same (and even with the same tone) would be staggering for Chinese people and make it very difficult to read. Look at 十, 时, 石, 识 (shi2 - 10, time, stone, know) all very common and go from completely different to exactly the same. Chinese youths know how to type pinyin but not necessarily the tones. The initial education costs would be huge and the effect on culture, very difficult to know but substantial. People here a fiercely proud of their local culture with their dialect being a big part of that and that kind of change would be difficult to get the masses to agree on. If Mao had gone through with it, maybe, but now and the near future?

[Mr Nobody]

Stil, your comment is true, being a man/women thing. Studies have shown this.

Interesting that it is a Chinese thing - perhaps that is why they sound so girly to me - the logic is 'female' if I may use such an expression without offense.

Hamish, yeah, I have always thought that language limits the speaker by it's own limits in expression. I posted maybe a year ago that we would radically change china by teaching English. A quiet revolution.

[joe]

"... Occidental languages focus on the logic of speaking. In contrast, Oriental the contents of the speakers words."

The contents of words and sentences dictate/are the logic of their use. Aside from that the writer is inadequately (and with contradiction) expressing a claim that Oriental speakers value formal beauty. Because...

"...the Chinese would concentrate more energy on the expression of his speaking, such as fluency, skill and beauty of his words."

That's true. I used to know a girl who said one day she would kill herself. She had entered a Chinese speaking contest and halfway through delivering her prepared speech she froze. She forgot the next word and lost it. But those three aspects of speech -- fluency, skill and beauty -- are certainly not aspects of informal content, nor are they aspects of language likely to improve understanding in communication unless the listener is keyed in to what makes a speech beautiful. The writer is ignoring the Chinese preference for aphorism and quotation. Form, in other words.

"From the two kinds of different characters of speaking we can learn that Occidental people are always holding a realistic belief and they favour formal expression and clear structure. Whereas Oriental people are inclined to informal expression and further understanding and meaning.

This is not a claim that has been demonstrated by the foregoing paragraph content. It's a statement by someone intent on finding a difference. And it happens to be the opposite of the difference the speaker has in mind.



Last point, something I found interesting:

www.everythingesl.net/downloads/myths_SLA02.pdf

The interesting one has to do with fluency versus ability to perform and represent cognitive tasks. (Myths 3,5,7, and 8). This is one I have been tricked by. I used to think that if someone could talk to me then they were ready for western style language processing tasks, like argument analysis.

[uberzilla]

joe said:

I'm fed up with people not caring about what's true. Truth and perceived truth are the basis for communication. Pick any other basis you like and it'll become worthless if it doesn't rest on some shared, perceived truth.

And it doesn't matter if the perceived truth is only perceived. That something is perceived as true implies that truth per se is a viable concept. The truth, to coin a phrase, is out there.

Are you an Aussie?

I ask for this reason. In Usania truth is a rare thing when interacting with people. Even in the science community, politics often interferes with getting to the facts. Let's not even bring up politics and law.

That said, your point is well taken.

Facts (objective observations of reality) are independent of existents (individuals) and in order to efficiently deal with our environment, and each other, it behooves us to deal with said facts as accurately as possible.
People like to inject politics for reasons other then efficient interaction (usually control, or power). One of the best ways to manipulate someone is through flattery, directed at an underdeveloped self esteem.

Woops, I could go on here but this is the wrong forum for such things.

Good observation about the language.
Language is a technology designed for conceptual communication.
As such, a logically designed language, will facilitate communication with more efficiency.

[Lotus Eater]

Hey - fair crack of the whip here - this is an undergraduate student having a go at defining differences that s/he perceives between English and Chinese - why are we so quick to denigrate anothers view - however inadequately expressed?? I can see what he is talking about - just have a look at Chinese poetry - it is about the beauty of the language not about the object perceived.

Is it because it is a Chinese view of the differences in languages and therefore not relevant??

OK - I have suddenly transmogrified into a Jewish mama defending my chicks!!

[Lotus Eater]

I am not a catholic and therefore may be totally talking through my hat here : But do the Carmelites and Cisternians have group worship i.e. in chapel/church etc? Do they have times when they attend a church service - matins, dang dang?? Do they confess whatever sins they have commited to another human being - i.e. priest? If so, despite their contemplative order - they still have the social aspect of worship that I am talking aout.

The only Carmelites I have ever come across are those from the group that had a nunnery half way up Mt. Coot-tha - and every once in a while they would drive up to the top of Mt. Coot-tha to see the gorgeous view - and really stir the lovers in cars who would suddenly look up and see a car load of nuns next to them. Really could put you off your stroke!!

The other nuns and Catholic priests I have come across have been gloriously human - playing pool and drinking with me!!

[joe]

deborann said:

Is it because it is a Chinese view of the differences in languages and therefore not relevant??

It's because it's a received (and misrepresented) Chinese view. It's because it includes a poorly examined claim founded on a possibly political and certainly unexamined understanding of the world. The claim, that Chinese value formal beauty in speech; the understanding, that there are substantial and therefore moral differences between Chinese and non-Chinese.

It's the emphasis on substantial moral difference that I find irritating. There are undoubtedly differences. But Chinese seem to thrill at discovering why we are separate peoples. Encouraging it in students ain't helping. (While discouraging it alienates -- see what a pernicious thing it is?)

I don't know how they do it, but have a listen next time someone says "I find foreigners [something Chinese don't do]," and see if it doesn't sound like a reason you are not part of the real society.


(Blah blah blah, and it's okay for them to do that, it's their country, but I prefer not to understand myself as "the other" and occasionally lose my head and post the remnants of bad china days disguised as academic concerns. The perils of being a teacher lie in telling people what is true day after day and finally coming to believe that you know what is true and are free to say it.)

uberzilla said:

Language is a technology designed for conceptual communication.
As such, a logically designed language, will facilitate communication with more efficiency.

Saluton Esperatozilla!

I suspect that to logically design a language one needs a prior language in which to express this logic. I think a better key to communication lies in being able to express something about expression, and so become aware of whatever logic already exists in the given language.

[Lotus Eater]

The whole point about cultures is that they are different. And given that the foundations of culture are language, education, religion and social strata (Hill, 1997) then all of our cultures are 'received" and "perceived". A child is born cultureless.

Therefore the differences in language are inculcated into a child from the moment it is born. This whole discussion has been about the

substantial and therefore moral differences between Chinese and non-Chinese.

from a non-Chinese point of view - with westerners being on the 'moral' side for being able to tell 'the truth'. In many of our comments about living here we have appeared to take a view that our own culture is morally, intellectually, politically superior. We may denigrate the actions of leaders and laugh at things in our cultures, but we still tend to see it as 'better' than the one we live in. Surely all cultures do this?

I teach "British and American Culture" and have broadened the course work to include an on-going comparison with Chinese culture. The papers they have to write all contain a line requiring a comparison with their own culture. Most students are critical (and a little defensive) of many aspects of their culture.

When we analyse each of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions (Uncertainty Avoidance; Masculinity/Femininity; Power Distance; Individualism/Collectivism; Long-Term Orientation) we take each of these dimensions and work through the impacts and manifestations within cultures. At the end of each section they have to score China as Hofstede only surveyed mainland China for LTO.

We then assess if these scores have changed over the last 10-20 years and are likey to change over the next 10-20 years. The students are clear that their culture is changing and will continue to change - and I point out areas where I believe that if Hofstede re-did the survey today scores in the west would also have changed.

There are no moral judgemetns in this course about what is right or wrong - just comparisions of how things happen. And it gives the students a chance to actually see how they are acculturated as well.

[joe]

deborann said:

The whole point about cultures is that they are different. And given that the foundations of culture are language, education, religion and social strata (Hill, 1997) then all of our cultures are 'received" and "perceived". A child is born cultureless.

Therefore the differences in language are inculcated into a child from the moment it is born. This whole discussion has been about the

substantial and therefore moral differences between Chinese and non-Chinese.

from a non-Chinese point of view - with westerners being on the 'moral' side for being able to tell 'the truth'. In many of our comments about living here we have appeared to take a view that our own culture is morally, intellectually, politically superior.

And... um... isn't it?

Granted, the world does not need to be, and should not be, restricted to one moral, intellectual and political system, but systems can be judged from the outside.

Spartans supposedly put their unhealthy, deformed or sick newborns out on the mountainside to die and, supposedly, built an effective and warlike society. Whatever the demerits of such a society, if it existed today and continued to treat its infants that way, it can, and should, from the outside, be counted as a failed moral (and probably political and intellectual) system.

I think we must at least admit the possibility that Chinese culture is currently a little impoverished.

That said, the thing about difference in China for me is that Chinese appear to understand any difference as morally significant. Skin colour, for example. Nose size. The kinds of clothes you wear, and the hours you keep. The fact that you aren't Chinese. I read that moral significance into the way the undergraduate had written, and I assumed some things about why she or he had chosen to so write. It's possible I jumped the gun, but given the shallowness of the analysis, you'd have to say that something other than reason is being used to support the truth of the claim in the mind of the writer, right?

But then, I am talking about undergraduates. Perhaps their teachers and leaders are a more carefree, accepting crew.

There are no moral judgemetns in this course about what is right or wrong - just comparisions of how things happen. And it gives the students a chance to actually see how they are acculturated as well.

My favourite irritant these days is "Everything has two sides." This aphorism is used as a conversational antidote to many a strong opinion. It is not often followed up. I think this is a failure because if everything has two sides then both should be addressed and judged, the better to know which side to choose.




(I come off as very right-wing in this post, and it's a little uncomfortable. I don't really want to be so harsh in my judgements of Chinese and their culture -- the subject is too big for my own shallow analyses. But I really don't want to be uncritical either. That way lies hopelessness and faith.)

[Lotus Eater]

In their analyses of education systems in particular my Chinese students are highly critical of their system. Although they have an idealised view of the western education system (American in particular) - probably given by to them by western teachers.

This student at least recognised that Chinese communication was not logical - but more concerned with form and beauty than content. I didn't see a moral superiority in that statement. It could even be translated as a statement of weakness of Chinese communication.

They are also critical of the guanxi and payment systems for advancement.

They do not see their own system as completely morally superior. But they, and any other culture, are entitled to be proud of their culture.

But when we judge other cultures we are judging from an ethno-centric point of view - from our own acculturation. It is impossible for us to truly move past this. Therefore when we citing the Spartans (or Inuit, Australian Aborigines or any other group who place the survival value of the group above individuals) or the Chinese and say

but systems can be judged from the outside ... it can, and should, from the outside, be counted as a failed moral (and probably political and intellectual) system.

then we are using our own received cultural values, mores and norms to state this.

So I cannot truly judge from the outside - because my own values are already biased in the direction of my culture, my beliefs of what is good and right.

Why is it OK for us to judge from the outside, for a culture we truly don't understand and find it lacking in moral, political and intellectual superiority and yet criticise those members of that society who judge our poorly understood culture from the outside and also find IT lacking in the moral, political and intellectual superiority?

I feel a bit like the pot calling the kettle black here.

[joe]

The usual supposedly non-culturally biased approach to judging another culture turns on questions like, "Is that cultural system adequate to its context?"

Questions of adequacy can be flavoured with cultural judgements but, at least on the principles of this believer, need not. A completely hypothetical example: a given cultural group has its historical origins in a spare and dry land, water conservation is a cultural value and has taken the particular form of restricting the number of glasses of water a person may, which is to say should, consume in a day. Climate change suddenly turns their homeland into a place beset by periodic flooding sufficient to irrigate much more land than the people need to feed themselves, but one hundred well-fed years later there is still a common wisdom that the fewer drinks of water a day, the better. Your opinion?

One may choose to say that whatever a given people choose to restrict (or liberate) themselves with is their concern. That suggestion, you may care to note, is itself a moral judgment: you choose not to judge the moral code of others. What if by, say, modern American morality, the US military may invade and pacify any country that threatens to seriously undermine world economic concerns? Who is American enough to make a moral judgment in this issue? If Chinese choose to control their population prblem by leaglly aborting any second child not matter the term, who is Chinese enough to condemn it?

Cultural relativism is an uncomfortable straitjacket when daily one must deal with another culture.

[Lotus Eater]

I guess I am saying that we do judge the morality of others - but by OUR standards not theirs. What we don't like is when they judge us - by THEIR standards and find us wanting. We need to be aware that the cultural standards are just that - not a permanent, immutable reality.

The Chinese people would point to the way we have nursing homes and old peoples homes in the west and in their eyes isolate and ignore our elderly and infirm. My students believe that it is their role to take care of their parents when aged and see our way of dealing with this as immoral. We may see abortions as immoral (although we have enough in our own country and without the "justification" of a massive population to manage and feed).

Cultures change - ours has, so has the Chinese culture. They will continue to change. But I don't think we should expect the Chinese culture to change to a western or Australian or American or any other type of culture, merely so that we feel more comfortable dealing with them.

Isn't cultural relativism the only way to deal with another culture? Doesn't that imply a) we realise that we don't completely know and understand the culture and b) if we are actually living within that culture, doesn't it imply a form of respect for the people we are with each day?

I would expect people from other cultures living in Australia to at least accept that my culture was different and not judge or impose their values on me. That does not mean that they cannot continue to see their own culture as valuable, but at least while they are in my country I would expect tolerance of difference and respect.

[joe]

deborann said:

I guess I am saying that we do judge the morality of others - but by OUR standards not theirs.

Yeah, we do.

Is it impossible that there be moral standards by which other moral standards can and should be judged? We should naturally be aware that any culture is likely to claim this role for its own standard, and we should therefore be cautious, but are we to be so eternally bereft of sufficient depth and breadth of moral understanding that other peoples may not be judged? But morality per se is about judgment.

Morality per se is a bunch of shoulds and oughts addressed to a group of people, or held in a person's heart. Some of the edicts will be historical accidents. Some of them will be modern revisions of ancient political restrictions. Some of them will be prohibitions that had a realistic basis in the circumstances of another time. Some of them will have current application, and be rendered "deep" by the resonances they have in the hearts of the relevant populace.

If any of these characterisations seem plausible, be aware that they are in part critiques.

But people "feel" their moral codes. People are attracted to the structure beyond the mere historical, political or sociological nature of the generation of the codes. People use them to structure their lives and to generate meaning. This is something I have regularly to remind myself of because it is perhaps the significant source of the potency of any code, and one should not mess too much with what someone takes as the meaning of their life.

If any of that seems plausible, be aware that the last clause includes a moral claim.

For myself, I prefer a system of obligations to understanding knowing that I'll fail to understand the majority of the things I see. I went to Catholic school.

Isn't cultural relativism the only way to deal with another culture? Doesn't that imply a) we realise that we don't completely know and understand the culture and b) if we are actually living within that culture, doesn't it imply a form of respect for the people we are with each day?

Cultural relativism is the idea that moral truths may hold, but only relative to the culture that made them. What you think is right can be applied only within your cultural group. It's a much stronger claim than one that calls for respect and understanding of other groups. Indeed it seems to negate the logical basis for both.

I think Chinese can judge me when they get to be more sophisticated about the existence of the outside world and their own moral precepts, and how the two don't mix well.

[uberzilla]

Before you read the response, I would like to point out that I only pick at people who demonstrate observational skills.

quote Lotus Eater:
I guess I am saying that we do judge the morality of others - but by OUR standards not theirs.

You are missing something here: objective standard.

quote Lotus Eater:
We need to be aware that the cultural standards are just that - not a permanent, immutable reality.

This is true though not phrased correctly. "immutable reality" is the equivalent of saying wet water.

quote JOE:
"Is it impossible that there be moral standards by which other moral standards can and should be judged?

Your question is invalid and can only lead to erroneous conclusions.

A "moral standard" is what it is.
A standard that is not moral is not a "moral standard".

Critical Abstract point: "subjectivity" fits contextually into "objectivity".


quote JOE:
are we to be so eternally bereft of sufficient depth and breadth of moral understanding that other peoples may not be judged?

This question is also invalid.

Using we invalidates the question as "we" is an all inclusive.

Are most individuals lacking such an ability...YES.
(just like most people do not become physicists or professional athletes)
Are there individuals capable of such judgement...YES
(It requires a ruthless pursuit of certain knowledge and a level of discipline that is extreme.)

This response may seem awfully picky, but when heading in the direction you are heading, you need to be as exacting as any mathematician

[acjade]

Most Contemplative orders in the Catholic Church live in community to an extent and the mass is centered around communion which is a communal sacrament. So these orders participate in some form of social worship.

The Cistercians have hermits and anchorites as do the contemplative Franciscans. They celebrate the mass alone or if a female receive communion through a grill. Julian of Norwich is a well known anchorite. Thomas Merton was a hermit.

The Buddhist monks and nuns have communal services and even meditate together in the mediation hall unlike the Catholic contemplatives who remain in their cells. The whole idea of contemplation is personal union with God and mystical experience is by it's very nature a solitary one.

There are two types of Carmelites. Only the Discalced Carmelites follow the strict isolation of St. Terese of Avila. The others have a relaxed rule that enables them to lead a bit more of a social life. The only Discalced Carmelite convent in Australia is in Launceston, Tasmania.

[joe]

uberzilla said:

Before you read the response, I would like to point out that I only pick at people who demonstrate observational skills.

So be it.

quote Lotus Eater:
I guess I am saying that we do judge the morality of others - but by OUR standards not theirs.

You are missing something here: objective standard.

Yeah, but which objective standard should () we appeal to?

quote JOE:
"Is it impossible that there be moral standards by which other moral standards can and should be judged?

Your question is invalid and can only lead to erroneous conclusions.

A "moral standard" is what it is.
A standard that is not moral is not a "moral standard".

To be clear:

a moral standard, aka a moral code, is a list of proscriptions and prescriptions against which "things" (in as broad a sense as the code defines) are judged. They are judged "moral" or "immoral". Codes themselves are not claimed as moral nor as immoral unless they fall under the terms of reference of a(nother) moral code. This is the logic of "terms of reference" rather than specifically the logic of "morality." Once a code does (appear) to fall under the terms of reference of another code, then does the logic of (that particular) morality become an issue, as in "Is the code that currently claims to judge this other code right to do so?"

Critical Abstract point: "subjectivity" fits contextually into "objectivity".

[/color][/quote]
It may do, but it is exceedingly difficult to know what this means. Perhaps that what is objectively the case is more fundamental than what (one thinks) is subjectively the case? Subjective perception is just a part of an objective reality? Objective reality is the shiznit?

quote JOE:
are we to be so eternally bereft of sufficient depth and breadth of moral understanding that other peoples may not be judged?

This question is also invalid.

Using we invalidates the question as "we" is an all inclusive.

It's an academic "we."

"Are we to be so eternally bereft..." means "Is there no...." The implicit claim in the semi-rhetorical question need not turn on the capabilities of people. I grant you that it sounded like asking if there will be no one to make up such a system, but I do use "eternally," allowing this collection of monkeys we are sat before our typewriters an infinite amount of time in which to produce our Shakespeare. The question is one of possibility (and therefore perhaps objective reason) rather than probability (and the frailty of we three monkeys).

This response may seem awfully picky, but when heading in the direction you are heading, you need to be as exacting as any mathematician

Mathematicians are pussies. They deal in determinate axiomatic systems and have the luxury of rigorous demonstration. Here we need to be as exacting as any linguist seeking translation of an otherwise unknown language. We aim at nothing more than the demarkation of the objective reality, my friends.

My name is Joe, and I am a nerd. I need to see my sponsor.

[uberzilla]

joe said:

Yeah, but which objective standard should () we appeal to?

The term "objective" actually gives the answer. There is only one objective set as dictated by the nature of existence.

joe said:

To be clear:

a moral standard, aka a moral code, is a list of proscriptions and prescriptions against which "things" (in as broad a sense as the code defines) are judged. They are judged "moral" or "immoral".

This part is good.

joe said:

Codes themselves are not claimed as moral nor as immoral unless they fall under the terms of reference of a(nother) moral code. This is the logic of "terms of reference" rather than specifically the logic of "morality." Once a code does (appear) to fall under the terms of reference of another code, then does the logic of (that particular) morality become an issue, as in "Is the code that currently claims to judge this other code right to do so?"

This part is incorrect. Circular

joe said:

It may do, but it is exceedingly difficult to know what this means. Perhaps that what is objectively the case is more fundamental than what (one thinks) is subjectively the case? Subjective perception is just a part of an objective reality? Objective reality is the shiznit?

Sorry that was rather vague. I am burned out from debating this stuff in other forums.

An example analogy:

An automobile must be engineered in accordance to reality in order to function.
This is an act of objectivity.

A buyer may like their automobile to be painted red, another may like their vehicle to be blue.
This would be subjective

joe said:

My name is Joe, and I am a nerd. I need to see my sponsor.

Damn good work Joe. Have a beer on me.

[acjade]

Here's a tragic debacle of cultural norms occurring right now.

www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1640175.htm

[Hamish]

I have seen the same stuff going on in Eskimo communities in Alaska during the 60s. Today, the activity attracts men from all over the world to SE Asia.

Reports are that the problem is as bad in "primitive" Australian villages as it can be found to be in the American Catholic Church.

Bad. REALLY bad!

[acjade]

hamish said:

I have seen the same stuff going on in Eskimo communities in Alaska during the 60s. Today, the activity attracts men from all over the world to SE Asia.

Reports are that the problem is as bad in "primitive" Australian villages as it can be found to be in the American Catholic Church.

Bad. REALLY bad!

That's one of the horror stories of the century, Hamish. The Aboriginal scenario is another. Political correctness gone beserk and right off the bloody track IMHO.

[Mr Nobody]

Er, uber and joe, what the hell is an 'objective' standard of morality?

[joe]

daoding said:

Er, uber and joe, what the hell is an 'objective' standard of morality?

A fairy tale told in variations in every country, often with suggestive cartoons and then war.






I believe the world is there. I believe it can be talked about.

I believe it is possible to be right about beauty.

I find it hard to express how much I value the difficulty of the task.

[uberzilla]

daoding said:

Er, uber and joe, what the hell is an 'objective' standard of morality?

That is a big question. Largely due to misinformation.

Definitions

Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.
Influenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Objective: Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Objective morality is based on the natutre of existence and existants. (existence=reality).

Things are more axiomatic then people want to accept.

The thing to remember is that for every exacting, properly asked question (one that has removed uneeded variable), there is only one correct answer.

Example:

2+2=4 - correct
2+2=5 - incorrect
2+2=6 - incorrect
2+2=7 - incorrect
etc.

There is a LOT more to this and this is not really a forum for this.
But I hope that much helps.

[joe]

"Subjective" is an adjective, as is "objective". Subjective truth is mediated truth. "It's true because I've got a hard-on for it" kind of thing. Objective truth is whatever really is true. It's hard to identify objective truth because all perception and all understanding is mediated, and it's mediated by pretty much everything you can think of: bias, prejudice, education, lack of education, physical limitation of our perception systems, bad hair etc. So the issue is whether or not there exists benign mediation of understanding.

In other words, are there paths by which you can come to know what is true. It's easy to think you know, but how do you know you know.

Thus an objective standard of morality is whatever really is right and wrong. Or, it's a subjective standard of morality that stands in for an objective standard and was developed via benign mediation of what is really right and wrong. Something we thought of, and didn't get wrong, and know we didn't get wrong.

k?



And there are useful mathematical systems in which "2+2=4" is not true.

They're not useful where money is concerned, but they exist.

Because "2+2=4" is a definition.