Well Arlo, I don't know about structuration, I think I'm talking about something more moq fundamental, as I touched upon with Platt and I will go into more detail here with you.
I'm talking about the formation of static values from what is. - that is, what has been working so far, what seems best taken as a model for what is best. A self-referential system that typifies religions and dictatorships. In fact, it is openess to variety and randomness that you puff your gills over, so I'd think you'd understand what I mean as its contrasting viewpoint. "Structuration" (in general, there are specific theories) basically sees > that > the assimilation of symbolic patterns (social and/or intellectual) provides > not > just the means to see, but also the manner. In enculturating the shared > collective history of our culture/society(ies) we ipso facto assimilate a > broader manner that "structures" the patterns we replicate and produce. > > For one small example, when you, as a child, learn the word "privacy" you > likely learned a shared association with things like "good", and "respect". > The > same term in Russia, learned by children, brings an association of > "sneakiness", "underhandedness" and "deceit". This isn't some "guvmint" > conspiracy, and it is not the effect of The Great Big Bugbear of P.C., but > cultural associations that date back hundreds and hundreds of years (if not > more). > Well I think we're definitely talking about different things. Your laying out the mechanisms by which social values are transferred or implemented, and I'm looking at the basic value sets themselves. When a society values reason above all, it will transmit the values of reason, when it values war, it teaches war. When it values itself, it teaches and transmits it's known static patterns based on what has pragmatically worked in the past. I tried to describe the problem to Platt, but what I want to emphasize here with you now is the inevitable formation of homotheisms when successful patterns are under threat. As Pirsig described the radically cruel and inflexible dogmatism of the Catholic Christian Church during the Protestant revolution - They arise as a reaction to stress, and it was a Values-vaccum in Germany which led to Hitler. The same values vacuum exists today, what is going to arise to fill it? > > The simple act of assimilating shared cultural symbols (via books, parents, > televisions, peers, studies, reports, hanging out listening to stories in > bars, > etc.) shapes (structurates) the way we then use these symbols to replicate > OUR > world. > > The tensions between "structuration" and "agency", I feel, parallel in many > ways the SQ/DQ of the MOQ, but moreso illuminates the field in which > intellectual patterns emerge (social patterns). > > Well I definitely think the key is being open to the dynamic and wary of the static. Any social system which represses free thinking and intellectual experimentation causes all our moral compassess to swing wildly away. > As I've said before here, painting this as "negative" is inane, as it both > constrains AND enables. Without our assimilation into the shared dialogue > of > our culture, we are left as biological organisms living in the jungle (and > I > don't mean L.A.). "20th century French culture exists, therefore I think, > therefore I am", another of Pirsig's insights. > > Perhaps the most revolutionary insight is the evolutionary - that where we are is not where we need to aim for. Change is not just an inevitable consequence of a random universe, it's a necessary ingredient for holistic life. Growth and improvement is change. Those come only from DQ, not sq. inane John 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/
