Hi Michael M. K.,
I agree that there is a close relationship between Person and Culture, although as you may note, I capitalize them. The reason is that these terms, like so many in the human/behavioral sciences and humanities already have many meanings.
When capitalized, Culture refers to the systems of justification that tie Persons together. Persons refer to entities that can self-reflect and justify their actions on the social stage. Right now, the only known entities to be Persons
in this sense are humans. Of course, if all the talk about UFOs finds validity and they come out of the close and start talking with us, then they too would be considered Persons in this sense. Jabba the Hut, for example, was a Person.
The reason I capitalize Culture is that it references the ToK System ontology, which makes the ontic claim that complex adaptive planes of existence are tied together via information processing and communication systems. This is what makes
human symbolic-syntatical language so crucial. Through processes of justification (i.e., dynamic back and forth dialogue and rule structures AKA Wittgensteinian “language games”) humans are socialized in Cultures to become Persons.
Other animals have little ‘c’ cultural practices.
See this Wiki entry. What they do not have is question and answer dialogue and the development of propositional systems that create an explicit intersubjective field of is and ought.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of michael kazanjian
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 8:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Psychology Prof Removed From APA Discussion After Saying There Are Only 2 Genders (*Newsweek*)
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Lene and Cory:
Good insights. Language is always a crucial factor. Semantics, synonyms, etc. can make or break the meaning of the written and oral. I can see "person" and "culture" being
somewhat interchangeable if not synonymous. I doubt we will ever get to the Early Wittgenstein's point of a simple language on which all agree. The Later Wittgenstein found that out, finally. So, yes, each culture is like all others, like some others, like
no other. However, "culture" can be the group of 2 million or 200 million persons. Thus, a difference seems to exist between person and culture.
Michael M. K.
On Monday, May 24, 2021, 7:05:25 PM CDT, Cory David Barker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Messages below for Gregg, Micheal, Lene:
@ Gregg:
Would it be correct to approximate as follows:
Animal-mental = Bio-psychological
Cultural person = socio-psychological
iQuad = The mein of a person and personal experiences
@ Michael K
I wonder if your notion would be a cross section across each of these to further diversify them. For example, all cultures share recurring properties as they
evolve, some cultures are like some and not others, while they each can have traits entirely unique to themselves.
A lot of ways to slice up the pie. I suppose it is more important the whole pie is being included in the division more than how we slice it, although some ways
to slice a pie are surely more elegant than others :)
@ Lene
Yeah it's a puzzle how to use language to satisfy everyone. Use any set of terms, one group will commend it and another group will trash it. My sense is that
if all stake-holder groups can’t get on the same page about the underpinning causes of the language issue with sex and gender, then even a language agreed by everyone is gunna eventually have the same problems down the road. I think same page means everyone
having some cognizance of the developmental trajectory and where people are on it in how they make sense of language, going back to what I was saying regarding meta-systematic.
Also, a little late, but I really valued your and Gregg’s post on levels of thinking applied to coronavirus.
C.