4 ms·
> And culture is, by and large, random, arbitrary, and self-reinforcing. The best definition of "culture" I've ever found is "how we do things 'round here". It
by kayo_20211030 8mo ago
> And culture is, by and large, random, arbitrary, and self-reinforcing.
The best definition of "culture" I've ever found is "how we do things 'round here". It's valid in both the large and in the small.
Of course, why and how we converge on those norms is mysterious, and the anthropologists, the psychologists, and etc. can have a go at explaining those parts. I can't.
- unicorn_cowboy 8mo agoYeah, please leave the cultural analysis to anthropologists, sociologists, etc. The engineering-focused materialist way of looking at stuff like this makes my head and heart hurt.
- AndrewKemendo 8mo agoIs your opinion that there is something non-material about Humans?
- unicorn_cowboy 8mo agoMaterialism is not fundamental; consciousness is. This assumes materialism as fundamental.
- AndrewKemendo 8mo ago> Materialism is not fundamental; consciousness is What is your epistemological basis for this claim? Any proof of this? And just for extreme clarity note: at no point have I made a claim yet
- svnt 8mo agoThe human concept of materialism appears to have been produced by historical humans who were also conscious, which at least sets an order. To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent. Materialism is a theory, not a reality, but its adherents can't tell the difference.
- AndrewKemendo 8mo agoSo your epistemology is historicism?
- svnt 8mo agoDid you recently discover the idea of epistemology or does your line of questioning have a purpose?
- AndrewKemendo 8mo agoThe OP suggested “The engineering-focused materialist way of looking at stuff like this makes my head and heart hurt.” Therefore excluding “materialist way of looking at stuff” from the question of social theory I have still yet to hear any elucidation with any type of philosophical rigor of why about the questions of humanity should exclude materialist lenses Further, at no point was there a epistemological foundation laid for the claim that consciousness is the foundation apriori from materialism
- svnt 8mo agoI read it as an expression of personal experience, not a declaration of anything. "Be not arrogant because of your knowledge, but confer with the ignorant man as with the learned, for the limits of skill are not attainable."
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- unicorn_cowboy 8mo agoHere's a starter pack of resources: https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-holographic-universe-michael-talbot https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-holographic-unive... https://www.essentiafoundation.org/ https://www.essentiafoundation.org/ https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/ https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/ Be advised this is not something that can be understood through intellectualization. At some point you have to put down the books and seek out the experience.
- strogonoff 8mo agoWhether monastic materialism or idealism is correct would be an unfalsifiable claim within the framework of natural scientific method. (That method is designed to help us make predictions; interpreting experimental outcome for a statement of objective truth is a misapplication of scientific method.) An existing natural-scientific model can be referenced in a philosophical argument, but the argument remains a philosophical statement. A philosophical argument can still be debated on other merits—e.g., which alternative grants magical objective existence to more arbitrary entities, or such.
- houllan633 8mo agoAre you interchangeable with a few mounds containing the exact same amount of the same molecules as your body?
- patch_cable 8mo agoIn the exact same configuration? Yes.
- throw36745 8mo agoReducing sociology to physics is a category error?
- unicorn_cowboy 8mo agoIt's missing the forest for the trees.
- svnt 8mo agoHumans are nearly defined by their access to the abstract. The abstract is definitionally non-material.
- fc417fc802 8mo agoI dunno about that, latent spaces are looking pretty material these days. I've got several variants saved to my local disk.
- svnt 8mo agoMap meets territory.
- michaelhoney 8mo agoWhy gatekeep like this? If you had developed an interesting account of some engineering topic and were told to leave it to the pros, you would find it deflating
- strogonoff 8mo agoAt its core, I believe the phenomenon of culture is intertwined with the hard problem of consciousness, which is notoriously circular and self-referential and roughly speaking “how we do/feel things ’round here” is potentially not far from the best we can do. Cultural baggage, for the lack of a better word, drives how we tend to approach reality (holistically or by dividing and classifying things, monistically or dualistically, materialistically or idealistically, and so on), and reality includes the very thing under discussion (consciousness, culture). Shared cultural baggage is perhaps the thing that makes us believe another being is conscious (i.e., shares similar aspects of self-awareness). Shared culture manifests itself in an infinity of fine details of one’s behaviour; looking like a human but not behaving like a human can be a great horror movie trope, depending on how carefully shared culture is violated[0]. This carries over to animals, to a degree. A dog is social to an extent that many would consider it conscious. An octopus is legally recognised as sentient in some countries—thanks to it behaving in a way that is vaguely reminiscent of ourselves. Same reason we call ravens smart. Most humans anywhere on the planet, though, share enough cultural baggage that we do not question whether others have what we consider consciousness; though I think some people are more sensitive to how much shared cultural baggage another human possesses, the small lack of which could lead to fear, cautiousness, and/or a feeling that they are in some ways subhuman (closer than a dog, but not as human as their peers in local community) relative to them, which eventually contributes to exclusion, racism, and so on (well demonstrated in both Japan and parts of the US). [0] Arguably, “behaving sufficiently like a human while being not human at all”, which we have plenty of examples of now in the last year or two, is another such trope.
- bwfan123 8mo ago> culture is intertwined with the hard problem of consciousness Majority of people are sleep-walking as machines driven by imitation, habit and external forces. We live in a dreamlike, mechanical state lacking the awareness of this itself. apropos: Gurdjieff
- strogonoff 8mo agoVery uncharitable and questionable on a few levels. Every human exists in context of society, no human exists standalone—the very definition of self, as in self-awareness, has the existence of other as a prerequisite. People you see are perfectly aware of themselves; it’s just that awareness of yourself does not mean you have to violate societal norms and show how individual you are all the time—at best, it requires a more acute awareness of norms (you have to know what to violate first, cf. all the various counter-cultures), making one more socially integrated and in some ways paradoxicay less individual; at worst (if you are properly disconnected) it makes one less of a human, not more.
- hearsathought 8mo ago> > And culture is, by and large, random, arbitrary, and self-reinforcing. Culture, by and large, isn't random nor arbitrary. Culture is obviously influenced by the past and the environment, but it's mostly artificially created by the elites. Once established it is self-reinforcing. > Of course, why and how we converge on those norms is mysterious, and the anthropologists, the psychologists, and etc. can have a go at explaining those parts. I can't. It's not mysterious. Monkey see, monkey do. We see the higher ups do it and we mimic. Or we are told this is how we do things and we obey. This applies to nations, corporations and families.
- AlotOfReading 8mo agoThis is the kind of half-baked stuff the parent is talking about. You're vaguely guesturing at the same ideas as Bourdieu, but missing most of the nuance behind his conception of capital.
- glial 8mo agoI'm partial to "culture is shared expectations". Which can, of course, be random, self-reinforcing, etc.
- tomjen3 8mo agoI think you're missing one element. It works. The culture in Germany in 1600 compared with the culture in Germany in 2026 is very, very different, even though the geography hasn't changed. That's because in the modern world nearly none of the culture of the old Germany works. This is not unique to Germany, of course. We long ago gave up on the four humours theory. We long ago gave up on burning women who wear pants. We long ago gave up of many things that used to be European culture. The culture of queuing in Japan works because you are looked down upon if you don't participate and because it is better than the random stuff we do in the West. However, it would probably disappear pretty soon if it wasn't also a good solution.