“…And of all the historical products of the human imagination, perhaps the most decisive and far-reaching has been the idea that there exists such a thing as an “intelligence”, installed in the heads of each and every one of us, and that is ultimately responsible for our activities.” (2000:419)

Whats he saying there?

w
v

waterfield wrote:

The problem with agendas-and we all have em- is that when it comes to discussing issues one tends to find support for their own “agenda”. And given the internet we can always find support for something we “believe”.

Well, yes, everyone, apparently has a “point of view” and
maybe we can call that an ‘agenda’ if we want.

It reminds me of what a lot of folks describe as an aspect
of “postmodernism” — the notion that there is no “the truth”
there is only “your truth” and “my truth” etc.

I dunno. Maybe all we can do is ‘the best we can’ to
sift evidence in a scientific way, and do our best
to continuously be skeptical of our own assumptions,
and ‘beliefs’ and question our programming.

And in the end there ‘does’ seem to be a qualitative difference
between, say Galileo’s work and a fundamentalist christian who
‘believes’ the earth is flat and the sun moves around the Earth.

I like it when authors and tv-talkers are open and frank and honest
about what their biases/agendas/beliefs actually ‘are’ rather than pretending like they dont have them or are somehow ‘neutral’.
I was skimming some customer reviews of the book “A People’s History of the Supreme Court” and some folks liked the author’s leftist politix and some folks didnt but everyone seemed to appreciate the fact he declared his ‘agenda/politics’ from the get-go. I wish every ‘news’ anchor-person did that, as well as every historian, writer, etc.

w
v

waterfield wrote:

“I always ‘assume’ its culture.”

I guess my question is “why” ?

Well, while I’m assuming its cultural, I’m also leaving open
the possibility that it aint cultural, or its some mix of this
and that. So, there’s that.

But the reason my ‘default setting’ is always to “assume its cultural”
has to do with my reading over the years. I’ve read so many articles
about other cultures that i know that women in culture X, during Era Y, in time Z, had “trait Q” — but women in culture A, during Era B, in time C, did not have “trait Q”.

Ya know. I mean, maybe the little boys who were acting like dicks at the martial arts tourney represented boys in Aappalachia. Maybe boys raised in a commune in Berkley California would have had different traits. And maybe little girls raised by the Black Panthers in the 60’s in Oakland would have behaved differently. I dunno.

I do ‘assume there are some core-biological differences between males and females. Cant prove it, but i assume it. But i also assume most differences are cultural-based.

Science is fun. Its fun wondering about all of it. I do think we have to be a little wary of folks (religious fundamentalists for example) who argue for differences because “God had different roles in mind” for men and women. Etc, and so forth. Agendas.

w
v

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

zn wrote:

Fact is, human beings may not really exist, in some respects, in the nature/nurture continuum.

Genetically we are built to be culture-bearing animals. That means culture has a direct effect on what we are as individuals, and paradoxically, we’re that way because we are genetically predetermined to be that way.

——————–
What do you mean “humans may not exist in the nature/nurture continuum” ?

w
v

It may be the wrong way of putting it.

That is, if we are genetically determined to be culture bearing animals, then, nature has decreed that much of what we are comes from culture.

So there’s no dichotomy, for one thing.

Anyway…to me, the question is this: what’s (A) hard-wired at the level of the brain, and what’s (B) absorbed through cultural/social values, practices, perceptions, norms, and taboos. Part of the issue is that many things on list “A” can be altered or re-shaped or transformed through list “B.”

======================================

So you are saying that females who grew up in an aboriginal culture in the fourth century in Japan, might have a tendency to have “trait X”
but females who grew up in 1999 in New York City might have a tendency to “Not have trait X”.

Still one wonders if they are tendencies that are ‘hard wired’ below the level of Culture. Core, ‘hard-wired’ tendencies that may differ among males and females. One would think that there are such differences given the biological difference that males dont get pregnant and females do.
One would ‘guess’ that a bio difference that big would lead to some core differences below the level of culture. Just how much cultures could ‘change’ those possible-core-differences, is an interesting question.

…on a side note, i was at a martial arts competition over the weekend, taking photos. (a judge and a magistrate were in the competition – friends of mine) Anyway, i had my camera and was taking photos, and I mainly took photos of the little kids. I noticed most of the little boys were kicking the crap out of each other, making all kinds of little ‘competitive’ gestures and generally just being little dicks to each other. Meanwhile the little girls were just laughing and having fun and enjoying the hell out of each other. There was quite a difference in the behavior between the boys and girls. I ‘assume’ the differences were cultural. But i dunno. I always ‘assume’ its culture.

w
v

• This reply was modified 10 years, 1 month ago by wv.

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

Lots of good performances in the movie.

Yes, good movie.

Albeit another “feel good about the royal family” Brit biopic.

But, that’s fine. It’s still a good movie.

Well mainly yes, but also a bit no. I think there’s a subtext playing the whole time that raises questions about the opulence and ridiculousness
of having a system with rich-royals.

And the character of Blair’s wife
in a small role does a nice job of mocking the whole royal-thing.

I’m reading a book by Sidney Lumet, btw, called ‘Making Movies.’
He’s critical of Alfred Hitchcock. Says he made the same movie over and over again. I’ll post about that book at some point. I’m enjoying it.
He also says he wanted Vanessa Redgrave for the Fay Dunaway part in Network, but the Writer didnt like her pro-Palestinian politix, so they went with Faye D.

w
v