The many strands of culture/middle ground betw. realism and conventional

Andre Gunder Frank Wrote: 

 

<OK, what Luke writes seems acceptable at first glance at least - with a small amendment that I hope Luke can accept. Like ethnicity culture is composed of many strands, and it/they change over time.  More than that, one [individual, group, etc] selects from among the strands to ''use'' the ones that are most ''useful'' st this time and place. at another time & place another set meets that need. There may be limitations in THIS Culture of what can be used/stressed, though it is also possible to ADD/REVISE ethnic/cultural features to fit the occasion/need. And that culture may have a structure is quite compatible with what cultural anthropologists have to say about it, which is many different things they say.>

 

This assessment sounds good; it goes a long way toward the

exploration of culture as a system of complexity. 

The question it raises though is the same question I must ask

in re: to the other culture & culture/science posts.  Where

lies the middle ground between reality-psychology dynamics ['sytem

of meaning' arguments] (with respect to the conventionalist

paradigm of shared intellectual consensus & shared meanings

about “what is”) and realist approaches to social existence and

nature (i.e., structuralism, classical realism)(&/or “quantum

realism” in the non-human, natural world)?  Or, is there a middle

ground and what constitutes it?

**********

Luke Rondinaro, Group Facilitator

The Consilience Projects

www.topica.com/lists/consiliencep 

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software