[Ham] I can understand "who raises us and how" to have cultural associations. I can even see how using the toilet is a cultural habit. But a fertilized ovum experiencing culture in the womb? If Krimel has evidence to support such an idea, I'd suggest that he bring it before a board of embryologists or psychologists. (It may trigger a whole new science of pre-natal culture!) Otherwise, I'm not convinced that "culture shapes experience", although I'm certain that value does.
[Krimel] Well I come from a fairly conservative place. We have a lot of strange cultural patterns here. For example we are discouraged from fucking in the street. We prefer to restrict reproduction to consenting and mutually committed adults. We have more success with the first rule but among the problems associated with the latter are culturally induced problems like fetal alcohol syndrome and low birth weight. [Ham] If you insist on using culture to mean "empirical", then all knowledge is cultural. But doesn't this distort the meaning of knowledge, which is the apprehension of facts and principles by the individual observer, whether such knowledge is of cultural, mathematical, logical, or physical precepts? [Krimel] I don't insist that culture means empirical but I do claim that facts and principles are often culturally determined. The cultural environment is more real to us that the inorganic environment. We learn and incorporate culture into our own realities. We don't just make it up out of nothing. We accept what's there. [Ham, previously]: > Here's a prime example of what I meant by radical > empiricists "explaining away" the individual as myth.. > Descartes couldn't think, let alone exist, if it were > not for the culture of 17th Century France! [Krimel] > I agree to the extent that Pirsig's complaint is not at the > core of the cogito but a step removed. Descartes gives us > assurance that we exist. He offers little clarity on what > existence is or what gives rise to it. Most of the problems > arising from the cogito, concern this kind of secondary > question. [Ham] I agree. But explaining subjective knowledge as a cultural phenomenon muddies the waters even more. [Krimel] Cultural phenomena can help us understand how subjective knowledge is acquired and perceived. But this is a different issue from whether thinking assures us that we exist. It is rather a question about the nature of existence. Descartes isn't much help from here on, I'm afraid. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
