Mikael Raaterova wrote:
>I assume that human cultures (I am no socyologist, you know, but I studied
>some manuals back at the University) are similar, in some respects, to the
>human ages of an individual.
As a metaphor it might be useful, depending on what you want to
illustrate thereby. It doesn't have much to do with reality though.
Incidentally, i am a sociologist and wrote my master's thesis on the
problems of conceptualizing and defining the mental bellybutton lint
notion of 'society', a concept that is plagued by exactly the same
problems as 'culture'. The paper with summary in english can be found
at:
http://www.soc.uu.se/publications/workpap.html
I thank you, Mikael. But I know it is a metaphor. I wrote I am nbo sociologist and I do not want to teach you anything. I just used some recallings of my studies for gaming purposes. What else do all you do?
>There are childish, young, adult, elder and ancient human cultures. I
>recall
>someone stated that human cultures can be male or female, so I suppose I am
>not completely mad. I am at least farther from the red line than Greg is
>and
>I am content of this.
The problem is that the 'age' of a culture is a perception in the
present projected into the past. Cultural continuity is an empty
concept, since all cultures change constantly. Deciding what elements
to base the perceived continuity on is always subjective opinion.
Of course it is a perception and it is changing. But so is also an individual and his consciousness, I daresay.
>How can you define a human culture? By two dimensions, I assume.
>Geography and Language.
You can of course declare that culture is defined by those two
dimensions, but it results in a highly artificial definition that
fails to recognize some 'cultures' like diaspora jews and most nomad
cultures. Also, if two speakers of the same national language (which
is sometimes the case with swedish) can't understand each other, is
language really a good tool for defining culture. And, combined with
the fact of non-communication _within_ swedish, what to make of the
fact that speakers of Norwegian, Danish and Swedish can understand
each other?
Of course it is artificial. I repeat: I am no scientist, I USE assumptions, even partial and debatable ones and I declared to do so. Didn't I, mewonder?
>If you can define a human aggregation by meaning of both a geographical
>specification AND a linguistical one, you have a human culture, in my own
>humble assumption.
The problem is not to judge whether a human aggregation is a culture
or not, since all human aggregations be definition have culture (man
being a social animal and all that); the problem is to distinguish
_between_ cultures. If you can't define where swedish culture ends
and finnish culture begins using your method (which you can't BTW),
then your method is non-productive when it comes to identifying
cultures.
Have I the permission to use it IMG?
The perception that there exists such a thing as 'an Italian/
British/ Swedish culture' is merely a perception. It comes apart when
you try to distinguish between cultures.
>I'd like comments. Do not nail me too soon.
Ok, I wonder what would have happened if I had not written that last sentence.
As a poetic metaphor your theory might have meaning, as an
observation of reality it has not.
Mikael Raaterova
Strictly speaking, I prefer to be a poet than a sociologist, but that's my
opinion. I swear that next time I will use POETRY as a subject instead of
SOCIOLOGY.
Where is the Gloranthan digest haunted by old, poor, humble, ironic poets
and not with square, solid, positivist scientists? I want to join it...
To the rest of you, Joe, John, Andy, Peter, Alex, who commented my theory I express firstly my gratitude.
Then I keep trying do disembowel your confutations:
I STATED I wanted to use two dimensions. Is this a free world? You can
always be polydimensional, even to define a line, if you are imaginative. Be
elastic, please. Are you not all Glorantha fans?
Mussolini is not culture, I do not speak of politics or military: I merely
speak of culture. Do you know italian culture? Do you know Manzoni, Montale,
Ungaretti, D'Annunzio, Moravia, Pavese, Bobbio etc. etc.? Mussolini was a
journalist, before becoming a dictator. Journalists write news not culture
(in strict terms).
I daresay the English language can't date back to Alfred: I am sure it
formed after William, like the Italian's Language formed after the Holy
Roman Empire. I chose Language as a dimension, you remember? If you search
rots and the rots of rots, you always arrive to Adam and Eve, but it's
unuseful, I suppose.
Russia? Russia as a culture formed in the early middle ages, but its
geography changed so much over the centuries that you can hardly connect
Piotr the Great with the Vargrav Princes of Kiev. I could guess that, in my
terms, Russian culture formed after they shook off the Mongols yoke (XIV
century?). So, during the reign of Piotr it was a young, aggressive culture.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
I speak Italian and not Gothic because the Gothic invaders took many aspects
of the Latin culture to enrich their own, and the language is one. But I
have many gothic words in my vocabular: my family name, Geroldi, is not
quite latin: it is teutonic at least. Gerold-Gerald-etc.
In Glorantha, yes the Lunars defeated Tarsh, but with my theory you can
explain in a not only military or political way the Fazzurite rebellion.
Remember, culture can't stop armies, but can survive to military occupation,
I argue.
Dara Happan culture is not disappeared, I agree: but it is no more
independent: it is merged with the Lunar Way, even if some doesn't know or
wouldn't admit.
I agree more with the Praxian note: the terrain is so peculiar in Prax, that
culture mixing is rather difficult. But in Pavis...
to John Hughes I say: please please please, grit your teeth elsewhere. I STUDIED Vico, the "inventor of sociology" (I didn't know this definition, but I suppose it could also apply to Plato...) and of cyclical history concepts. To reduce his intuitions to the remark that "not understanding is the way by which Man creates his world" is ridiculous. I don't know how do you study Vico in your country, but he was a man of his time, a pre illuministic scholar. I challenge you to quote his thought on the matter! BTW, sociology as a science was born in the XIX century in France. Your Inventor, Vico, never used the term sociology and I say that hardly, before Kant, he could say a sentence as you, dear John, report as his own. Quote your sources, please. Vico was a little dead by the momento sociology was born. Did he died in the troubles of giving it birth, I wonder??? Thank you for the MGF stuff. I am happy to know my ideas are most fitted for Maximum Game Fun and little else.
Take care.
Ciao
Gian
P.s. Offence taken. Not meant. Well, just a little bit, to be honest.
Powered by hypermail