SA, I'll come back to your totem stuff - just catching up - but ooops yes, I typed gene instead of meme there ...
Ian On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian: >> Agreed SA ... like most things that are any good >> they are not really >> new in any sense, just that someone coined a new >> word in a new >> context. Plus ca change - twas ever thus. > > SA: Yes, and I think the orientation changes in the > new context. For instance, political systems and > their inherent defining in where power exists, as I > briefly mentioned in another thread. Bands power was > more spread out and no one person was always in > charge. Then the Big Man comes to power in more > tribal contexts, chiefdoms (the family lineage), and > then state where power is decentralized from the > larger population shifting to a more centralized > gov't/institution somewhere, someplace. This shift of > power and thus political systems is an effort by a > society to bring order to themselves. Religion was a > good social ordering power, but then what of all the > religions when they converge, especially in a state, > another overarching governance to enacted and this is > state government. Totem's were individual and > familial (the clan) in orientation. What I see by the > rise of state governance (so we're going way back in > history in certain geographies) is the need for a way > to order society amidst a population that becomes more > diverse in how they conduct themselves socially, such > as different religions, different economic markets, > etc... Thus, more and more impersonal abstractions > come about, and being they are 'impersonal' (what > science would call natural laws, or philosophy logical > premises, etc...) then the person and family is kept > out of these 'impersonal abstractions' for they are > 'impersonal' (it is self-defined). What can become a > problem is when impersonal abstractions try to act, > are forced to act, or are believed to act - > personally. As gav pointed out, (I haven't read it, > but this is what gav said), Campbell's "Creative > Mythology" describes how people are to come up with > their own myths, and mythopoetic endeavors are open in > the midst of impersonal abstractions, the personal > abstractions is void, a space exists and we can come > up with them on our own. What becomes difficult is > the resistance impersonal abstractions may take on or > if impersonal abstractions try to take too much > control and kill the mythopoetic process. > > > Ian: >> I think gene still holds the "cultural" aspect - > > SA: Did you mean meme, not gene? > > > Ian: >> that's the point - >> but as you say it is an attempt to make it "seem" >> more scientific, >> more "atomic". It's only "stripped-down" >> (reductionist) if you want it >> to be, and clearly we don't. > > > SA > > > > 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/ > 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/
