What is "Culture"? LO20099

Fred Nickols (nickols@worldnet.att.net)
Sat, 05 Dec 1998 17:40:04 -0500

Replying to At de Lange in LO20093 --

AtdL writes...
>In other words, whereas this "black box" Creation exists
>objectively, nature and culture exist only subjectively.
>It is in this sense which I understand your (Fred's)
>sentence "There is no such thing as culture".

At, you are such a deep thinker that I'm never quite sure I've understood
what you've said let alone whether or not I agree with it. :-) That
said, if what you mean above is that I'm of the opinion that there is no
OBJECT called culture, only our perceptions, some portion of which we call
culture and thus create a SUBJECT called culture, I agree with you. That
is what I am saying. There is a SUBJECT (or, more precisely, a subject
matter of culture) but there is no OBJECT. Said a little differently, in
my view, culture is an example of reification.

If you agree with what I've written above we are, as they say, "On the
same wavelength."

P.S. I also agree with your metaphor of the dog biting
its own tail, that is, the notion that creating a
subject matter of culture without really having an
OBJECT culture is tautological or circular thinking.
In this case, the dog is not just biting his own
tail, he is gnawing, chewing and just plain chomping
on it.

AtdL: You also wrote...
>Leibniz, a contemporary of Newton, announced that the natural sciences
>like physics, alchemy (now chemistry) and biology would not advance into
>new worlds untill they have learnt to acknowledge monads (wholeness) in
>their studies. Two centuries later this claim was substantiated by the
>emergence of thermodynamics, relativity theory and quantum mechanics. The
>associated paradigm shift was from casual interactions to holistic
>interactions -- a shift to wholeness.

A question of clarification here. In your last sentence, did you mean
"casual" or "causal"? I am assuming "causal" but it could well be
"casual." Please clarify.

Finally, regarding your notion of a "creativity praetor," I think I
understand what you're driving at At (I couldn't pass that one by :-)),
but I will have to give it much more thought before responding. Why?
Because my initial reaction is to disagree and that is a signal to me that
I need to give the matter more thought.

At the end, At, you write, "Thanks for reading so far."

My reply: You're welcome. It was well worth the read.



Fred Nickols Distance Consulting http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm nickols@worldnet.att.net (609) 490-0095

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>