Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
> the very topic of relations between w-systems and worldviews
> (culture, religions, ideologies, etc) seems to be worthy of
> discussion in wsn.
>
That's the exactly point I wanted to remark. I think I'm almost an
strange in this mailing list (but I'm interested), because I'm an
anthropologist, but I found that my discipline has some use in this
debate.
First, I must agree with a point remarked by a WSNer of my country:
Alfonso López Borgoñoz wrote:
> The only system for to know, and for the transmission of the
> knowledge, is
> the models.
>
> And the models needs to have a relations, a strong relation, with the
> empirical data, with the observations of reality. If we have poor
> data, we
> have poor models, but this poor models can be the best possible if we
> don't
> have nothing more, till we have more data or another best system of to
> see
> the data.
Of course! You got it! All of you are lucky if you aren't
anthropologist. My discipline is immersed, since some years ago, in a
bizarre wave of thinking which is called "postmodernism". That movement
is not only propriety of anthropologist, but in anthropology has
achieved an importance which is not equaled in your disciplines. The
best proof of this: you use, in your mails and counter mails, methods of
thinking called "theories". In "classical" anthro., the anthropologist
used such a models to place the data which they got in their field
works. But now, the anthropologist who doesn't want to be out of fashion
has to use the term "theory" in an alien way for the epistemology of the
rest of disciplines or even deny the possibility of construct a theory
in an anthropological way (his way, of course). A good example is the
work of Mr. Tyler. Alfonso López signed the real problem for my
discipline: the model is the only system known for the transmission of
knowledge. Maybe Anthropology cannot be considered a scientific
discipline anymore (However, I maintain a little hope).
Anyway, I think that the anthropological approach to human reality
has some use in the debate of WSN. Sure, the worst model is the model
that doesn't exist, so I have to agree with you in some points. My
postmodernist colleagues would like to deconstruct your model, but I
prefer to construct and contribute, in a modest way.
I want use a concrete model, the Sappir & Wolf's tyranny of
language. All of us are employing english for understand and exchange
ideas, and I suppose that the majority of us think in a Indo-European
language. Both scientist think that language and its structure dictates
our ways to think, our mere way of watch and understand the world. So,
below the words and superficial uses that the rest of the world took
from the West, remains an almost impossible translation between
different cosmovisions. Almost impossible is not impossible, but the
difficult is so strong that if we want to understand the dynamic of
economy in non-western (or, at least, european-like countries), we must
be very care at using models which are designed for the Occidental
countries. Well, I'm agree with Harris (the basic dynamics of each
culture and its results -norms and idea systems- have a material and
economic base.
So, What is the main problem? All of us (in some degrees) think that
the entire world are being involved in a very complex dynamic which
affects it as a whole. In the economic field, this point is almost
proved. The fundamental question, I think, is if we have a universal (an
strong universal, in anthro. terms) dynamic or if we have a less-defined
set of characteristics which is shared by each culture in a minor or
major way. I think, like Wolf, that we have a set, not a unique dynamic
shared by each culture. Then, the phenomena which are superficially
equal (because occidental acculturation is a fact in almost the entire
world) are different in the base. We have a help: the phenomena which
are the base of the major social dynamic have, I think, a material base,
therefore we can compare it (if the phenomena have just a cognitive base
the comparison is not possible, I think); the limits of the help are
very clear: I think, Vs Harris (and Marx), that superstructural
phenomena have some degree of freedom(sic), and the feedback of their
own dynamics move away them from the conditions imposed by the
infraestructural phenomena.
What does this mean? We can analyze world dynamics, but the extreme
cognitive differences between cultures of different root demand us to
increase the complexity of our models, in order to face the REAL
complexity of the reality that we want to analyze. Meanwhile, I think
that we must reduce the level, the range of our model, so that we will
be able to describe the dynamic from the meanings of each cultural
group. Of course, the final goal must be the construction of a universal
model, but we cannot do it unless we consider the cultural difference
and the way it affect the infraestructural phenomena.
Finally, I want to apologize for my english.
Juan Luis