I remember the late nights covered by a soft blanket of stars. I remember the silent walks through an old, wise forest pierced by the needles of morning light. I remember the lonely state in which I once stood, constantly questioning the very nature of being human. I stood in the darkness to this great mystery lying beyond my own mind, as if trapped upon a world distant from the very thoughts about which I pondered.
Take hold of the image of the form in which I appear, for I am merely a tiny part of an existence mirrored from what I experience. From my knowledge of those experiences, I dream my dreams.
Indeed, this morphology of new thoughts is beautiful - like new worlds - all moving to the rhythm of a higher plane. This rhythm is like a dancer, liquid in form and carried away by the beats of a drum. This rhythm cannot be seen, but what it does is all that matters; like the soaring winds across a spring sky rustling the leaves of a young oak. This is a time of rebirth, another cycle, a constant revolution. These are the winds of life itself - chaotic, interrelated - transcendently beautiful.
As human beings, throughout our lives, we gather perceptions of the surrounding world. Through what we see, touch, hear, taste and smell, we construct a perceptual universe. Through this process, we give value to, and form relationships, with all that exists. We act upon these values - we love, and we hate - we are human beings and, in many respects, spiritual beings. In our nature as individuals, we are different; we are unique from all others. In this difference, our ideas are in constant conflict with those of our fellow human beings. Nevertheless, we strive forth into the social environment with which we surround ourselves.
We can diagram the basic process of gathering information, constructing thoughts, and finally acting upon those thoughts. The first step to explaining this process is to acknowledge physical input from the surrounding environment. Imagine yourself browsing through a local bookstore. As you are searching for anything of interest, an old friend of yours suddenly sees you and dashes over to say hello. This is a great surprise because, previously, you thought you would never see this person again. How does this process of recognition and reaction work within the mind?
As represented in the box labeled “sensory,” your eyes gather the image of this old friend. This image then transfers into the brain?s mechanisms: in this example, the visual cortex. From this point, the information encoded by the visual cortex makes its way through synapse after synapse, eventually reaching the memory. Since you previously knew this person quite well, their profile exists in memory. Contained in this profile are various values acknowledging your relationship: What does this person look like? What sort of personality do they have? Are they your friend? What mood are they in, generally and at present?
Another value this profile acknowledges is that you never expected to see this friend again. However, as your friend is standing right in front of you, your brain relays this information into memory. The particular profile is then changed accordingly. This new value in the profile now acknowledges that, although this friend was away for a very long time, they have returned. The new value then relays to other regions of the brain, perhaps the emotional center and/or the center for producing language. Finally, those innate emotional or linguistic mechanisms send signals throughout your body. This, in turn, results in a very human reaction to the sight of an old friend. Perhaps you jump for joy, yelling their name, and then rushing over to give them a hug. This completes the process outlined in the diagram, producing an actual physical output.
This basic process of action, formation of thought and eventual reaction, is essential for the construction of concepts and the values that they possess. As we gather experiences during our life, we learn from those experiences, eventually constructing representations from the causal link to those experiences. As those representations converge, they form perceptions which act as the determining factor in the creation of values.
Noam Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar brought about the notion of deep structure and surface structure in the generation of linguistic syntax. The deep structure of language was, in essence, an innately formulative mechanism. As words and phrases, otherwise known as lexicons, pass through the deep structure, the lexicons are then arranged into a meaningful language - the surface structure.
The psycholinguist Steven Pinker argues that the mind is modular, containing a different mechanism for nearly every primary function of the brain. He claims these modules of the brain follow along the lead of Chomsky’s deep structure. As a result, he believes the entire scope of human behavior has its roots in the deep structures of every module interacting and interconnecting within the brain. (Pinker 1994: 419)
Upon this argument, every bit of perceptual data contained within memory is gathered throughout one?s life. The sensory retrieves this data, and the brain’s modules mold this data into a single structure, the perceptual universe-within-mind. This construction of concepts and values encompasses everything from worldviews to one’s simple opinion about their favorite color.
The formation of root values within one’s memory can best be explained through the following example. Perhaps my parents, when I was a child, were fans of the Beatles. Throughout my childhood, the only music I listened to was from that particular musical group. The values contained within the ?music? profile in my memory - the conceptualization - were thus built on a sort of Beatles? archetype. What I would know to be a song’s rhythm would be based on the rhythms used by the Beatles. What I would expect singing to sound like would be based on the Beatles? style. In essence, I would use this Beatles archetype to define what music should be.
If I was suddenly introduced to another genre of music, say classical music, I might dislike it at first because the core values of what I have come to know as “music” would have been based on the Beatles’ archetype. Conceptual frameworks upon which values are built are commonly referred to as cognitive schemata.
The perceptual universe-within-mind is, in many respects, similar to a vast ecosystem governed by the rules of Darwinism. Like an ecosystem, it stands as a single large structure that achieves balance amidst its complexity. In addition, like an ecosystem, new ideas, or inputs, constantly bombard our minds, even though only a few “survive.” From all the information we receive, and all that we experience, very few ideas move on to be accepted as “true,” becoming a deeper part of this single structure of memory. A key question then is, what enables them to survive? This is indeed a difficult question because we cannot see our thoughts and how they affect our behavior. Still, by putting this question within the context that the collection of ideas in our mind creates an ecosystem of thought, an answer to the question begins to emerge.
Imagining the collection of knowledge in memory as an ecosystem sets forth existing ideas as the environment to which new knowledge is introduced. This environment, of course, is defined through various schemata: the conceptual frameworks upon which these ideas are built. The question about the survival of new ideas then becomes, can the new idea survive within that particular environment?
Returning to the example of using the Beatles as an archetype for all music, I might have a problem accepting and enjoying classical music if I have developed a Beatles-oriented “musical” schema. Granted, I may end up accepting the new style if my experiences with, and surrounding, it are pleasurable or useful. Alternatively, I may end up despising classical music forever. However, attention must be paid to the notion that competition between ideas for approval within the ecosystem of thought allows the “survivors” to be passed on. Perhaps some day I will play the Beatles for my son or daughter during their childhood. From this experience, they may eventually develop their own Beatles-oriented “musical” schema. This sort of packaged Darwinist behavior has recently been described as universal darwinism.
Individually, we each partake in the formation of culture. At the same time, culture stands as a great influence in the formation of our self. However, many questions arise about what culture is, how it forms, and how it undergoes reformation.
In essence, culture appears to be the amalgamation of knowledge and procedure through the interactions between all members of a social group. An interesting phenomenon is that, as is true of memory and the formation of ideas, the rules of universal darwinism still apply on the cultural scale.
Knowledge passes from one individual to another, either achieving acceptance or rejection within their minds. Therefore, the knowledge that “survives” within the great majority of minds of an identifiable group usually becomes a cultural belief. For example, the idea that we are not to murder one another is widely held throughout our culture. Thus, it is evident that this particular idea is a true “survivor.” It becomes a transmittable piece of knowledge. These packets of knowledge are sometimes referred to as memes for their ability to duplicate themselves through our capacity for imitation and reason. Represented in the following diagram as variable C, a meme pool is the amalgamation of all memes within a particular culture.
Anthropologists attempt to break culture into a handful of primary components: the arts, political organization, social organization, ideology, technology and economics. In the above diagram, I have decided to add psychology, or mental state, because many psychological anthropologists hold the belief that several psychological disorders are the cause of cultural problems. As an example, they believe that depression is the effect of weak family structures and/or an unforgiving, impersonal socioeconomic system. In addition, I have decided to add urban design as an additional component. According to Paolo Soleri?s arcology theory, the study ecological and socially balanced urban architecture; if physical community design changes, the social behavior of those living within that community change. If I am raised within a sparse mansion, I may turn out to behave differently than if I had grown up in a crowded, one-room apartment. However, in claiming these two points, nearly anything within the confines of culture could be considered a cultural component, thus addressing the need for the “[other]” label.
One of the results of the universal darwinist behavior of the meme pool is that every component within a culture is intricately connected with all other aspects of that culture. In the diagram, the double arrows near the component labels represent the idea that if one component changes, every other component, as part of the meme pool will also be affected. Nonetheless, because of these very interrelationships, mapping out the effects of such cultural change is not always easy.
An example of the relationship between memes might be explained in the following. The United States insists that economics is a central component of culture. The behavior resulting from their insistence has resulted in a morphing of all other aspects of American culture to the predominant image of the economic system. Childcare, for instance, is now treated as another business practice through the development of day care centers. As the raising of children is being lowered to the level of automobile maintenance, countless social pathologies are beginning to emerge because children lack the level of attention and love historically given to them by their parents. Because of the overpowering economic institution, the basic psychological needs of our children are casually ignored in the name of productivity.
With the application of universal darwinism to the notion of cultural evolution, one may ask, what is the catalytic function for cultural change? What, in essence, is it that invokes change? I believe that cultural change is instituted through the reification of action and reaction, in itself, in a state of reification with the reification of subjective (individual) and intersubjective (collective) epistemologies. This process of bifurcated reification brings forth the distribution, duplication and possible acceptance of ideas throughout a culture. In other words, the interaction between the knowledge within our minds and the actions we take act as catalyst to the constant transformation of culture. In the above diagram, this is represented through the “subjective”, “intersubjective”, “actionary”, and “reactionary” labels surrounding and applying to variable C, the central meme pool of a culture.
The relationship between the process outlined above and the neurological processes of the brain is inferential. Our conceptions of objective truths are an inference to those actual truths. These conceptions are reinforced through verification within an intersubjective epistemology. This verification, especially in the western tradition commonly follows under the direction of logic schemata. These schemata have been constructed to propel human thought in synchrony with the infinitely complex reason of objectivity insofar as our capacity for reason allows. Memes in themselves are merely conceptions of these neurological processes. Therefore, the “meta-meme” in memetics, if disproved within this process of intersubjective verification, will be replaced with another conception referring to these neurological processes. The act of disproving memetics will then follow under the conception of the alternative theory in how memetics is, in referential actuality, disproved. The neurological processes in themselves will not change.
Suppose a local chemical plant is dumping toxins into a river. Those who live nearby this river begin to notice severe damage being done to its ecosystem: the water is becoming murky, and fish and other wildlife are dying at an alarming rate. Before the construction of the chemical plant, those living near the river grew up in a pristine environment. They formed a deep reverence for the river’s habitat, where they had developed an environmental ethic, trying their best not to cause great harm. Their conceptual framework of the river has always contained values built upon cleanliness and biotic diversity. In other words, they developed a very friendly “environmental” schema.
Then they noticed the river was becoming poisoned. They reacted in an intensely negative manner because of the deeply emotional, far-rooted relationship they have with the surrounding environment.
A few miles away, the other townspeople living further from the river have very little regard for the natural environment. They see nothing wrong with the chemical plant’s actions because they have not had the experiences and knowledge that led them to form a close relationship with the environment. With such a lack of knowledge and experience, values of respect towards the environment may never develop, where the townspeople fall victim to our culture’s general notion of dominance. Thus, destructive and exploitative values toward the natural world are built into their “environmental” schema.
The probable action taken by those living nearby the river is to get the word out. Through this, the ideas within their the minds will be communicated and duplicated into the minds of others, the collective community with which they are associated. Another step they may take is to act upon their ideas. Perhaps they protest against the chemical plant’s atrocities. This will also translate into ideas that circulate throughout the collective. At this point, knowledge that was intersubjectively scarce might become a bit more commonplace depending upon the degree to which the others accept it as “true.”
However, what happens when others refuse to accept new ideas? This is indeed a difficult question because we are unable to peer within the minds of others, seeing thought for thought, the grounds upon which they reject an idea. In some cases, one’s environmentally unfriendly mindset has already been psychologically institutionalized. They may never change their mind as a result. For some, this mindset has its advantages; perhaps they are receiving some sort of benefit, such as payments from the chemical plant to distribute warped information. Some may have even had traumatic experiences. Perhaps as a child, they nearly drowned within the river, and they now hold a deep-rooted resentment towards the natural world. For some, the constant bombardment of new information is all that is needed to change their values. Nevertheless, many will hold on to their views tenaciously, fighting to defend what they believe. Cultural change occurs as a result of the competition between ideas. If new ideas boldly present themselves within a social group, in time, people may adopt those views, but this change may take several generations to penetrate the core beliefs of a particular culture. Therefore, if the protesters continue onward and never give up what they are trying to accomplish, they may eventually ingrain an entirely reworked “environmental” schema into the minds of the majority. Perhaps over time, they will win the battle against the chemical plant and save the river’s ecosystem from total destruction.
The last important variable to explaining the nature of cultural change is social capital theory. This theory explains the importance of trust-relationships between members of a social group. As we constantly experience, we form and reform our values. This formation of value also pertains to people in the development of their “profiles” within memory. As we attribute value to others, we form relationships with them. Social capital is constantly being created as we interact with each other. Sometimes, however, we fail to utilize the social capital created. To effectively utilize social capital is to ensure all members of a group hold close trust-relationships with each other. If, in the example about the chemical plant, all members of the community had developed a high degree of social capital in their interactions with each other, ideas could easily flow between individuals and the collective. This smoother flow of ideas would accelerate the rate at which the collective mindset of the community may change.
If a resident by the river was to try to educate good friends about the poisoning of this river, his friendship may enable them more likely to listen to what he has to say. In addition, they would most likely take more time to think about what they had heard. Conversely, if this resident were to speak to a group of townspeople he had never met, his words would hold less emphasis. The townspeople would not know and understand his way of thinking. In doing so, they could not trust him. This would potentially render them less able to see his point of view. This inability, in turn, might lead to tossing his ideas aside without a second thought.
When all members of a group trust each other, they are also more likely to be honest with each other. For example, if the members of the community were to be honest with each other, they would also be much less likely to deceive each other into following a particular point of view. Instead, as utopian as this might seem, they might actually cooperate in order to change their cultural beliefs for the benefit of the collective. Honesty and trust go hand in hand - without one, the other cannot exist. An increased honesty among members of a group will, in turn, increase trust among them, and vice versa.
In a time when radical change is needed, social capital must be considered a primary factor in such change. Without it, we might be little more than anonymous drones, devoid in our power to influence others.
As a part of society, we strive to be virtuous individuals. With the achievement of virtue comes honor and respect. Within such virtues is masked the underlying system of values within a culture.
The cognitive anthropologist Bradd Shore proposed the notion of foundational schemata, a sort of cognitive schemata which lie at the roots of a culture. These conceptual frameworks provide the blueprint for the fundamental values held within a culture. (Shore 1996: 53)
Chet Bowers, another proponent of this model claimed that from this foundation comes the formation of what he calls root metaphors. These metaphors reflect the values held within foundational schemata.
In the previous example about the chemical plant, the townspeople living furthest from the river hold very exploitative values against the environment. Their “environmental” schema, arguably part of their culture’s foundational schemata, would bring about a general metaphor with which the townspeople interact. This metaphor acts as the interface to the interaction with the outside world. Whereas those living nearby the river may see the earth “like/as” a “mother”, those living a far distance from the river may instead see the earth “like/as” a “whore” in expression of their system of values within the context of that particular foundational schema. Different root metaphors reflect different systems of values. Therefore, the justification of action is reliant upon foundational schemata and their corresponding root metaphors.
In the light of foundational schemata and root metaphors, I propose the existence of foundational virtues. Virtues are commonly seen as attributes of an individual which involve the following of a culture’s moral framework. This framework is defined through the composition of memes within the meme pool and their relation to cognitive schemata. Foundational virtues are attributes of an individual which involve the following of the foundation of such a moral framework as part of its corresponding foundational schemata.
As the components of American culture begin to transform into the image of the predominant socioeconomic system, the foundational virtues of most Americans has been that of aggressiveness, ambition and great prudence. Many regard, in this context, the chief executive officer of the Microsoft Corporation, William Gates as quite the virtuous individual. In essence, they see Gates as the model for all young Americans to follow. An interesting phenomenon is that while young Americans are told these virtues are the ones they should follow, many still want to adopt such virtues regardless. This occurs because those virtues held by Gates are synchronous with the proposed foundational virtues of aggressiveness, ambition and prudence through the sheer dominance of our socioeconomic system.
However, many continue to choose an eclectic mix of virtues, and then proclaim to our society that we must adopt these virtues regardless of our place within the overlying cultural environment. However, if the virtues they choose are contradictory to the foundational virtues of a particular culture, the people are no less than functionally rational not to adopt those virtues. In acknowledging this, I make the claim that we should not tell the people what they must be, but instead, ask ourselves what ideas we must boldly present to a culture in order to, over the generations, ingrain those virtues as the foundation of such a culture.
If we fail to approach most ethical problems in this way, some might romantically proclaim that the collection of virtues to bring out the true essence of humanity is little more than a far-fetched dream. Shall we continue on our current path, or begin the process of cultural transformation?
However, what is the “true essence of humanity”? In addition, do universal virtues exist? Acknowledging the idea that the entire scope of human behavior has its roots within the deep structures of the brain’s modules, universal virtues may be found embedded within those deep structures. The deep structures are innately formulative mechanisms, and in claiming this, the formation of virtue is a dispositional matter. Aggressiveness, prudence, ambition, courage, patience and compassion (to mention a few) are all virtues within the sphere of human nature. Yet, as mentioned before, whether or not those virtues become foundational is dependent upon the formation of culture. In the “true essence of humanity”, we are only inclined to become what we value most. However, as cultural institutions come into conflict with human nature, we have a great tendency to resist the forces upheld by those institutions. In this sense, human nature is quite dispositional, yet at the same time, inelastic. In our nature, we are equipped to follow models and make decisions, yet also in our nature, there exist certain core attributes that define us as human beings.
Such institutional conflict can be seen in the struggles many teenagers face in modern culture. As teenagers reach puberty, they are physically ready to move beyond their childhood, to be married or even become parents. Psychologically, we assert, they are still “kids” in need of nurturing until they have firm placement in the job market. Even so, many teenagers still engage in sexual relations beyond the periphery of their parents. Nevertheless, if caught, they are sent to prison under laws proclaiming offenses of “statutory rape.” Many ethical theorists, armed with their logically “perfect” formulas, label such acts as “wrong; wrong; wrong!” Upon this, virtues of patience are brought down upon them. However, in polar, other institutions of culture constantly ingrain into their minds slogans such as, “time is money.”
The teenagers are physically ready to enter adulthood. They are only acting on their own nature. Moreover, our society fails to prepare them for this period in their lives. By this failure, they are not psychologically ready for such an undertaking into adulthood. However, the tragedy of this situation is that society feels it must punish them for simply being human. Then, as a whole, society gives the teenagers mixed messages about who they should be in the context of the situation. They are told to be patient individuals, yet are also told that time is indeed money. As human nature and culture collide with each other, social pathologies commonly give rise.
When the need arises to redefine the foundational virtues in culture, those foundations must conform to our core nature as human beings.
Through the sensory organs and into the mind of the individual, thoughts and values are born. As we continually learn about the world through both a priori and a posteriori means, we begin to develop cognitive schemata with their correlating system of values. With the application of universal darwinism, the collection of ideas within our mind becomes the environment to which new ideas are introduced. In this environment of knowledge, an idea’s fate rests upon whether it can survive within the particular environment. In the communication with others, the knowledge we have gained throughout our lives becomes transmittable knowledge. This, many believe, is a collection of memes which soon take on a life of their own, converging into a culture-wide meme pool. The interaction of memes within this meme pool creates an entire ecosystem of culture. This cultural ecosystem then becomes the driving force in the catalytic function of cultural change. Social capital theory declares the dependence of the free competition of ideas upon trust-relationships formed by the people within a society. Lastly, virtues and their ties to the foundation of culture must not be thought of as an unrealistic goal, but the very properties of a desirable culture formed through the competition of new ideas.
This completes the cycle of influences between individuals and culture that leads to the dynamic nature of cultural change. This cycle, in constant revolution, like those very winds of life, is chaotic, interrelated and indeed, transcendentally beautiful.
Published: 7 years, 4 months ago
Leave a comment in the form below.
Leave a Reply
You must log in to post a comment.
Latest entries