"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
moths are drawn toward the light which kills them. People are not much better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
The problem is defining what makes a society superior. You would have to name each specific aspect of that society and compare aspects. Even then you would never get agreement on what is superior.
Is Monet superior to Rembrandt?? So is French society then superior to Italian based on that? Everyone KNOWS that Paris is the place to be (if you are an artist)
Is Art superior to science?? So do the haunting chants of Africa make them superior to America because we can't get past technology?
The best that you can do is study the best of EACH society and learn from them.
And migration is a silly criteria for deciding superiority. Everyone KNOWS that moths are drawn toward the light which kills them. People are not much better.
Rembrandt was from Holland.Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
Is Monet superior to Rembrandt?? So is French society then superior to Italian based on that?
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
Of course - Silly me :roll: Just substitute in Michaelangelo or whoever. .
And Herb. You leave an vast area to argue, if I had the energy. All of your statements are based on your prior suposition that your way is the better way. What if it is NOT.
What if a shorter lifespan with better inner quality of life is superior to a longer lifespan in a technological whirl?
What if advanced technology is the very thing that is going to prevent societies from coming to learn their true potential spiritually, and is therefore a detriment?
Based on the migration theory, the inner city societies are superior to the rural communities because LOTS of people have migrated there. That MUST mean that gang life is superior to farm life.
[QB]
I thought the suburbs had grown at a faster rate than the inner cities becuase of migration???
But in any event people migrate because they think they are leaving an inferior situation to a superior one, correct???
[QB]
I fear that your prejudices are built into your statements that you are sure that we can all agree on.
I'm leaving it open to debate with many open ended questions. No doubt I do have prejudices, like everyone else on Earth, but I am aware of them and willing to listen to sound arguments posted here on javaranch.
In my opinion, the problem is that societies can go decay, go backwards, and regress. Pretending that it can't happen because there is no such thing as regression makes it easier to occur.
Originally posted by <herb slocomb>:
......
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
You are talking abt society or nation ???
WHat I see a nation can have number of societies. Society is not bound by political boundries.
And whatever you discussed is related to money not to society.
>>But don't you think most women would not want to live in a Taliban type society?
So what you think?? Most women want to marry thrice? (I beg pardon, but this is the picture of west, and I know all are wrong. When you can have picture that in muslim countries woman have no right,which is not true, I would also like to tell world's picture about women in this society)
>>Why are immigration patterns so drastically skewed in one direction throughout the world; from third world to first world nations?
Its about money. What the heck made you think that it has something related to society ??
.
>>Would most humans want to live in a pre-historic society
Society changes with time based on the advancement made in the world.
>>Would most people prefer to live in an era when slavery is accepted.
Get some people of that TIME, he wil be best person to answer.
.
>>some societies are clearly more advanced or better than others?
are you confused with nation & society ??
.
Cindy, it seems as if you are threatened by this idea?
"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I explained my position clearly......
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
>>people of "that time" decided to get rid of slavery since we no longer have it now
So you want to say that whatever happend is because of society will.
Then you are wrong.
I wont take India-Pak example, but you can take east/west German. Now they are united but before that can you say that it was the will of society?
Take the latest example, Hongkong does not want to go with China but it has to.
My point is that *sometimes* society *has to* adopt changes.
And how much is my knowledge abt US history, till govt did not make rule/law, slavary was there. So it was *imposed*, not adopted by society.
For which you can feel proud. and I am 100% sure that if u get a man from that age who had servants, he would not like your idea. For him that society was best.
Nothing wrong, he had money and he was buying people. A man can kill a man but cant buy and make him live.
>> there can be different societies sharing the same culture living side by side, but diferring by economic/political organization and hence be different societies.
Here I am done.
And what I have found from your talks, you want to migrate for much more money. Nothing wrong in it.
But my problem is that I cant mix society and political boundries. You can. Our definitions are differnet.
I wish you all the best for search of best society.
I wish you get better society than yours.
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
Everyone KNOWS that moths are drawn toward the light which kills them. People are not much better.
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
I personally am not particualary "zen" in my approach to life, but I can see that there are MANY folks who are, and who would radically disagree with most of your statements that you say we can all agree on.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I never suggested agreement by all, only by most. And when I say "most" I only mean most of the rational people. Zen is not known for its rationality, but on the contrary is famous for its irrational koans and for making the mind blank. Koans and blank minds will never help us organize society, but are instead a pefect recipe for chaos, anarchy, and social regression.
Originally posted by <Michigan Alumini>:
I think we can agree on one thing: a decent education will help people organize society.
Originally posted by <herb slocomb>:
......my point is that MOST people..........
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I dont believe in number game.
There are 100 things I can give you example which are doen by thinking of MOST people and all are blunder
So you think that there is a society which says dont go for medical, dont get education ... and whatever your points are of better society.
For US, some days back someone condemning job scenario of US that if you know some bigshot in company then only you can get job in US.
AW I make my own society.
Originally posted by <herb slocomb>:
How do you organize your society?
Live for yourself and worry only about yourself .....
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
My main problem with "progress" is it isn't linear.
Look at Russia. Communists got a country where most of population was illiterate, health care - ha... As the output there was fast developing country with free education (including college education) and free medical assistance. Too bad it quickly progressed to nowhere.
From what I read, open market is expected to correlate positively with all goods under the Sun, but then, there is Latin America...
I am ready to agree with ME cynical "be in right place at right time" explanation applied to countries.
Originally posted by <herb slocomb>:
In a nutshell, here's what I'm driving at:
1. Societies can advance over time.
2. Societies advance at different rates.
3. The economc, political, cultural, and other social institutions of a society can influence its rate of progress.
4. We can identify some of those political , cultural, economic, and other social factors that influence progress.
5. We should promote those basic factors that contribute to progress in our schools to avoid an electorate that is easily demogoged and that could led to policies being adopted that retard progress or lead to its regression.
"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
Isn't that what politics is all about?
Promoting those things that you feel will improve the society that you live in?
So I figure that you are going to get about as much agreement as your normal run of the mill conversation on politics. :roll:
Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
Isn't that what politics is all about?
Promoting those things that you feel will improve the society that you live in?
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
In order to attempt to define one society as superior to another, wouldn't we first have to agree on what the goals of societies in general are, and then think about how those goals are best reached?
For example, if one purpose of society is to protect its members, then the society which is best able to provide this protection is superior in this aspect. Now of course we know that societies serve many purposes, of which protection is only one. Education, health, welfare, productivity, quality of life, opportunity, birth rate, freedom, and a myriad of other factors also must be accounted for. So then I guess the ideal society would be that which achieves some desirable balance between all these factors (maximizing protection would likely minimize freedom for example).
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I read something close to your idea in an interview with Francis Fukuyama for "World Link", Jan-Feb. 1996, but it was a translation1, and I couldn't find English version on the Internet. But this text is close enough: Social Capital and Civil Society.
-------------------
1) I found it in "Library of Russian Patriots" (not quite correct translation, but close) in the section "Enemies".
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet