Talk about the serpent eating its own tail: here is the man who coined the term cyberspace, now entering it as an avatar. I'm a geek. This has a kind of technorgasmic completeness that leaves me almost speechless.
There are more installments on the right sidebar.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
'...Brian Eno's definition of CULTURE: "everything we do that we don't really need to do."'
My definition: Everything we do ....
( http://tinyurl.com/2oftbl ) ..............
without understanding the need or lack thereof.
Would instincts, then, be considered "culture"? Seeing as they manifest themselves innocent of understanding.
I'd say generally no. They are potentially innocent reflexes, but I would have to think of examples which are not cross-cultural. Perhaps some subtle gender/genetic variations, but not something you do because 'that is how we do it!' Worshiping the sun-god might be an instinct at striving for understanding of causality effects (the sun causes life; how and why?....) but institutionalization of this instinct to understand, in the form of organized religious dogma, would not be instinctive, but would definitely be cultural. One tends to grow up believing the geo-chronological metaphysics of one's place and time- a corrupting effect of training on instinct. Naturally corrective negative human feedback by reason and experience is progressively crowded out of the 'understanding' equation by the formalization of the metaphysic for political reasons; believe what we say or we cut off your head or send you to hell.
I can almost parse all that, but my eyes seem to glaze over around "...but institutionalization of this instinct to understand..."
The tinyURL address doesn't work. Perhaps you truncated it?
But my question was meant to test the universality of your "culture is everything we do without understanding the need or lack thereof". Instincts would seem to fall under that category.
pebble said...
I can almost parse all that, but my eyes seem to glaze over around "...but institutionalization of this instinct to understand..."
Not so hard to grasp. We start out as curious kids seeking insight and understanding by exploring and observing the world. Soon we are assimilated into a media and culture-moderated rationale for much of what we do and see- reference the "torches of freedom". Curiousity becomes optional. Instinct is still there for basic fear or wonder or "schlock and awe", etc., but much muted by expectation and desensitization. We have been there, done that- at least on YouTube.
Just the other day I saw a fantastic race among several aircraft over some city- where was that??? Now I will be less curious when I see metal or fabric birds flying erratically over Chicago- or are they doing that on purpose? Hmmmm.
The tinyURL address doesn't work. Perhaps you truncated it?
It didn't work out. Merriam Webster has a sound demo for dictionary words- in this case 'mimetic' which is supposed to be pronounced like "metic". Go figure.
But my question was meant to test the universality of your "culture is everything we do without understanding the need or lack thereof". Instincts would seem to fall under that category.
But there are two categories- the necessary and its' antonym. I glance at the sun instinctively, more so now as a convert to the sun-god worship society. I do not, however, attend service on Sun-days or wash my feet before squinting upward. The former, a necessary instinct; the latter, unneccessary cultural artifacts. Both are subsets of 'culture': one intersecting and one "proper" or fully inclusive. Culture changes but instinct and scientific necessities (food, water, shelter, vision, sex) do not. Culture grudgingly accepts scientific necessity, if it is wearing clothes. That is why there can be cultural evolution, and hope for the future.
I'm off to visit relatives this week after changing oil in my old toyota- four wheels on the ground!
anonymous, you have a remarkable ability to concatenate words into strings that just will not go into my brain.
Twists of meaning pile upon themselves until I can't begin to sort out what the heck you're trying to say.
I'm going to have to think on this and see if I can restate it and have you check for accuracy....
To be continued.
Let's start at the beginning. First, your contention that "culture is everything we do without understanding the need or lack thereof."
That can be simplified to "culture is everything we do without understanding" because "the need for" and "the lack thereof" describe the sets A and Not-A, which sum to zero.
But we do a lot of things without understanding them. Hiccoughing, for one. Having babies was, for a long time, a wholly mysterious process, now only somewhat less so. Neither of those activities falls under the category of "culture".
I'm thinking your definition needs some further specifics.
Post a Comment