3 ms·

I wonder, did you develop this idea yourself? I ask because it sounds similar to the central idea in the book Sapiens, and if you haven't read that I expect you

I wonder, did you develop this idea yourself? I ask because it sounds similar to the central idea in the book Sapiens, and if you haven't read that I expect you'd appreciate it. At least for the sense of satisfaction you might get at your idea having broader recognition, but also because it's an interesting book. Sapiens discusses that countries are lies, money is a lie, every human organisation is a lie. (I use your terminology here, IIRC the author uses the term "collective fiction"). I found your comment interesting because you consider culture as a collective fiction, but I think you might be right that there's a difference between a self-identifying culture; and a non-self-identifying culture. Which, for me, raises the question: is the latter type an unspoken collective fiction, but a collective fiction nonetheless? And what are the practical differences between the two. Especially: does one type persecute outsiders more than the other? Should we try to avoid self identifying cultures as a rule? If so, when should we make an exception? Anyway, perhaps I ought to turn my armchair sociology into a reading list.

fit2rule 8y ago
Thanks for the book recommendation - I'll definitely read it. To be honest I feel like this idea is a natural law, so I didn't develop it - just made the personal observation as a consequence of abandoning my own born-culture, adopting another, abandoning it, adopting another, etc. as I've moved around the world to live. >Which, for me, raises the question: is the latter type an unspoken collective fiction, but a collective fiction nonetheless? I would say, yes. Because its a natural law - there is no such thing as human culture, unless we perpetuate it in the telling - and this is why I chose the word, quite carefully, lie. Lies have to be re-told in order to persist. Collective fiction is a great phrase, and I will integrate that into my thinking. :) >And what are the practical differences between the two. Especially: does one type persecute outsiders more than the other? I think the human mind identifies, associates, and differentiates - and that each of these activities can either support perpetuating collective fiction, or deny it. To the extent that the individual recognises that they are indeed perpetuating a fiction, determines the 'detriment' to other individuals who are also capable of the same feat, albeit within their own identified cultures. >I ought to turn my armchair sociology into a reading list. Likewise, and thanks for the insight.

fit2rule 8y ago

Thanks for the book recommendation - I'll definitely read it. To be honest I feel like this idea is a natural law, so I didn't develop it - just made the personal observation as a consequence of abandoning my own born-culture, adopting another, abandoning it, adopting another, etc. as I've moved around the world to live. >Which, for me, raises the question: is the latter type an unspoken collective fiction, but a collective fiction nonetheless? I would say, yes. Because its a natural law - there is no such thing as human culture, unless we perpetuate it in the telling - and this is why I chose the word, quite carefully, lie. Lies have to be re-told in order to persist. Collective fiction is a great phrase, and I will integrate that into my thinking. :) >And what are the practical differences between the two. Especially: does one type persecute outsiders more than the other? I think the human mind identifies, associates, and differentiates - and that each of these activities can either support perpetuating collective fiction, or deny it. To the extent that the individual recognises that they are indeed perpetuating a fiction, determines the 'detriment' to other individuals who are also capable of the same feat, albeit within their own identified cultures. >I ought to turn my armchair sociology into a reading list. Likewise, and thanks for the insight.