Questions on Patron/Client relationships

[NeilUnreal]

I don’t usually go tit-for-tat, but I’m bored again today, so here goes…

Typical Western cultural imperialist drivel. You have no place to dispute any of this; you are not even a reader of anthropology, much less a scholar in the field.

Actually, I have studied a bit of anthropology and sociology, not a much, but some; I considered a dual major in anthropology as an undergraduate. In the end, I was more interested in a bifurcated study of humanity: the role of biology and ecology in shaping us on the one hand, and the idea of culture as an abstraction on the other (i.e. philosophy). So you’re right, I did skip the anthropology “classics,” but I have studied many of the same ideas in some depth, albeit from other angles.

As to “typical Western cultural imperialist.” Surprise! I grew up in part outside of Western culture; in particular in far Eastern cultures. Having said that, I don’t claim to be an Easterner; most of my experience of the world is as an Westerner. But I do have some immersive knowledge of Eastern cultures and vernacular, even if only as an outsider living in those cultures.

Your desperation is evident in that you're now resorting to such expedients as accusing them of lying:

There is a difference between the types of inconsistency that arise in discourse and lying. Here is an example:

Suppose an outsider, an “anthropologist from Mars” asked you to describe the “meaning of America” and give a view from the inside of what it meant to be an “a typical American family”? (If you’re not a typical American insert your own culture into the question instead.) What would say? Would it be 100% accurate? Would it reflect all your thoughts on these topics at your best and worst moments? When lying in bed at 2 a.m.? When talking to insiders?

And if not, is your description a lie?

YOU do this very thing, arguing for your own modern Western norms as "privileged," in spite of the fact that they represent the tiniest minority of persons who have ever lived. Who's more likely to be demanding privilege that is not warranted?

No, I’m a post-structuralist; I’m willing to concede up front that everything I’ve posted is merely my personal metanarrative. But as Eco points out, even arbitrary signifiers have pragmatic utility. The potential for discourse to covey truth is equal to its potential to convey untruth. I don’t ask you to believe what I say, I was you to weigh it in light of your own experience.

And:

COUGH -- what did you just say about using anecdotes, you hypocrite???

I said to understand what they are and the context in which they occur; neither take them at face value nor discard them. Do likewise with my anectdotes.

Until then, you're just Acharya S in another suit.

My cultural metanarrative requires that I wear jeans and flannel shirts.

-Neil

p.s. I like to bounce things off you, jp, because I always find the serious parts of your replies challenging and thought-provoking. But that applies only to the serious parts of your replies. Forgive me, but the bluster tends to hide what ideas of value you do have to convey; you’re not doing yourself or your ideas any favors. Here’s a bit of advice from one Dutch Uncle to another:

Dude, lose the ‘tude.

[jpholding]

Actually, I have studied a bit of anthropology and sociology, not a much, but some; I considered a dual major in anthropology as an undergraduate.

IOW you're a mere dabbler with no authority, just as I said, and sorry, you can't pretty it up with vague claptrap like, "I have studied many of the same ideas in some depth, albeit from other angles." Translation: You imposed your own views imperialistically.

As to “typical Western cultural imperialist.” Surprise! I grew up in part outside of Western culture; in particular in far Eastern cultures.

A very good explanation indeed for why you feel so compelled to arrogantly impose your own interpretations. Just another condescending Uncle Whitey McSam trying to help those poor, benighted ignorants reach their full potential.

There is a difference between the types of inconsistency that arise in discourse and lying.

There's no difference between one type of expedient and another, and your resort is an expedient, regardless of whether you accuse them of lying or whether you try to sanitize your accusation after having been caught at it.

Suppose an outsider, an “anthropologist from Mars” asked you to describe the “meaning of America” and give a view from the inside of what it meant to be an “a typical American family”? (If you’re not a typical American insert your own culture into the question instead.) What would say? Would it be 100% accurate? Would it reflect all your thoughts on these topics at your best and worst moments? When lying in bed at 2 a.m.? When talking to insiders?

Spare us the broken analogy. There's hardly any comparison here to a broad sweep of scholarship over decades that has had the experience of numerous 'living laboratories," a vast panorama of literature, and countless native informants, many of whom have experienced both sides of the social equation. You're just straining for excuses to avoid an unfavorable conclusion.

utility. The potential for discourse to covey truth is equal to its potential to convey untruth. I don’t ask you to believe what I say, I was you to weigh it in light of your own experience.

News flash: Personal experience sucks as a validation mechanism when it is not approached with discipline and filtered through more objective criteria. Why not become a Mormon next? You've already joined Acharya epistemically, so may as well make it a two-fer.

I said to understand what they are and the context in which they occur; neither take them at face value nor discard them. Do likewise with my anectdotes.

Horse crackers. You were caught being inconsistent and that's that. Too late for damage control.

My cultural metanarrative requires that I wear jeans and flannel shirts.

Mine requires that you wear a dunce cap!

Dude, lose the ‘tude.

Speak for yourself, Uncle McSam. You're just as much a "tude" as anyone with your arrogant imperialism which you disguise with the rhetoric of tolerance. Like Karen Armstrong, you manage to be "tolerant" and condescending at the same time, but you have too much self-righteousness to see it.

I don't give quarter to those who refuse to fact the facts honestly and contrive all manner of excuses for keeping their fantasies alive. You'd be better off admitting that you're just spitting in the wind, but clearly your vision of the world is too precious to sacrifice on the altar of truth and fact. Here's what you need to do to earn respect:

1) Stop making excuses.
2) Admit that's all you've been doing all along.
3) Actually STUDY the relevant literature.

Until that happens, the 'tude is your reward for being indifferent to the greater good.

[NeilUnreal]

I know you are, but what am I?

[jpholding]

I know you are, but what am I?

This:

[NeilUnreal]

touché. Sorry about the brevity of my last post -- the boss called with a rush assignment leaving me no longer bored but a bit grumpy instead. Let me think about some things while I’m working on that assignment…

-Neil

[jpholding]

:Let me think about some things while I’m working on that assignment…

No, please don't think. That could result in a serious violation of the Kyoto Accords.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'd actually think that this is the way most of us think. When someone wrongs me, I note not to trust them. When someone does something good, I realize there is a way I am bound to them. The more I've thought about what JPH says, the more I realize it seems to be the way I've lived all along. Honor has always been serious for me.

Of course, it could be because of my condition that doesn't make me buy into modern social concepts. Who knows?

[Teluog]

Teluog. I would say however that there is a distinction with God being relational in himself in the Trinity. We're not triune so we are to be interdependent with one another.

That was my next question actually. The question being: how much are we to be involved and dependent on others?

[Teluog]

I'd actually think that this is the way most of us think. When someone wrongs me, I note not to trust them. When someone does something good, I realize there is a way I am bound to them. The more I've thought about what JPH says, the more I realize it seems to be the way I've lived all along. Honor has always been serious for me.

Of course, it could be because of my condition that doesn't make me buy into modern social concepts. Who knows?

I'm the same way too actually. I've always approached people with a discerning eye for who is trustworthy and who isn't.

[Andius]

That was my next question actually. The question being: how much are we to be involved and dependent on others?

Mmhhh, I would have to say, 24/7.

To give a modern example, average human being relies on the labor of others in a reciprocal for their well being. For the standard wage laborer, his work gains him the salary that allows him to acquire the goods he needs or wants for ensuring his well being or of his loved ones ( family or roommate for example). By his salary, he provides the much needed funds needed by the car engineer that designed his vehicle, the store salesman that provided the means to acquire his food, the store salesman that provided him the clothes. And you can even go further how these salesmen acquired their goods via the farmer, butcher, sower (dont know how you say it), and so and so forth.

There of course, more particular examples. For example, when families offer care and protection to their respective members. In my experience, there has been more than one occasion where we have sheltered my cousin when he got mugged in his household once (Hell no he ain't returning there). Or giving life support to my dying grandmother, encouragement to my grieving grandfather and his sons and daughters (my aunts and uncles and mother).

Hope this does answer the questions though. Even amongst the most individualized of peoples (aka, Western Peoples) still require interdependence amongst themselves to sustain themselves and thrive.(Which is the natural byproduct of specialization of labor after all no?)

[Andius]

That would be too generalized a conclusion. It is certainly more helpful in understanding that relationship, however. It remains for me to see whether it is overall superior. Each can be misused, but I will want to discover at some point which one in general leads to better psychological health and the greater good, when applied as intended in its best incarnations.

I also had wonderings regarding that.

For example, I have always wondered (and still do) that because the recent western peoples have a too particular mindset and customs that practically separates them big time from the historical human standard, it has lead me to questions regarding that which we call "feelings of guilt", individualistic thought, are nothing more than artificial things, byproduct of our introspectiveness.

It has planted me major horizons on what it is to be human, and other philosophical stuff like that.

Thankfully, it´s writings of the Context Group that finally granted me license to finally follow inclinations I have had my whole life (To name a few)
- Having a high concern of my appearance and opinion of others, I was always condemned that I was giving in to peer pressure.
- No feelings of being "in love" (It had me believing that I was some sort of freak by having no sentimentality towards people, why everyone else were having these feelings frequently, but not I).
- Confrontation with others (I was getting so tired of playing Mr. Nice Christian, especially when bona-fide wrong that I could confront and fix could be done).

But yeah, even I am still wondering wether having this inclination makes us more human, given how God himself relates to us in those terms (Which leads me to think that perhaps the ancients and the other 70% are more closer in being in the "Image of God" by virtue of their thought pattern).

[Teluog]

Mmhhh, I would have to say, 24/7.

To give a modern example, average human being relies on the labor of others in a reciprocal for their well being. For the standard wage laborer, his work gains him the salary that allows him to acquire the goods he needs or wants for ensuring his well being or of his loved ones ( family or roommate for example). By his salary, he provides the much needed funds needed by the car engineer that designed his vehicle, the store salesman that provided the means to acquire his food, the store salesman that provided him the clothes. And you can even go further how these salesmen acquired their goods via the farmer, butcher, sower (dont know how you say it), and so and so forth.

There of course, more particular examples. For example, when families offer care and protection to their respective members. In my experience, there has been more than one occasion where we have sheltered my cousin when he got mugged in his household once (Hell no he ain't returning there). Or giving life support to my dying grandmother, encouragement to my grieving grandfather and his sons and daughters (my aunts and uncles and mother).

Hope this does answer the questions though. Even amongst the most individualized of peoples (aka, Western Peoples) still require interdependence amongst themselves to sustain themselves and thrive.(Which is the natural byproduct of specialization of labor after all no?)

It doesn't , because I was referring to friendships/emotional closeness and not so much about economic things.

[Andius]

It doesn't , because I was referring to friendships/emotional closeness and not so much about economic things.

/in exaggerated British accent:

Then why didn't ya say sooo!?

/sarcasm mode

Oh-oh, emotional closeness, yep, that's out of my department of comprehension.

[Teluog]

Oh-oh, emotional closeness, yep, that's out of my department of comprehension.

Ah. That explains why you're a jerkstore.

[nightbringer]

I imagine that both collectivist and individualist cultures have their pros and cons. Though maybe the idea of saying that our culture is some degenerative mutation really disturbs me. Especially if that means being in love is "bad". I can get REALLY sentimental towards someone, and while there is certainly an element of personal enjoyment in that there's also a whole lot of just wanting to delight and care for the other person. =/