Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 09:21am PT
|
Jan:
On the last page of the document that I pointed to (Hoststede’s research) that I posted just above, it presents these models of organization (social and economic) based upon the research. The models and references are intuitively appealing.
• The contest model (`winner takes all´)
Competitive Anglo-Saxon cultures with low power distance, high individualism and masculinity, and fairly low scores on uncertainty avoidance. Examples: Australia, New Zealand, UK and USA.
• The network model (consensus)
Highly individualistic, `feminine´ societies with low power distance like Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Everyone is supposed to be involved in decision-making.
• The organization as a family (loyalty and hierarchy)
Found in societies that score high on power distance and collectivism and have powerful in-groups and paternalistic leaders. Examples: China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore.
• The pyramidal organization (loyalty, hierarchy and implicit order)
Found in collective societies with large power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Examples: much of Latin America (especially Brazil), Greece, Portugal, Russia and Thailand.
• The solar system (hierarchy and an impersonal bureaucracy)
Similar to the pyramid structure, but with greater individualism. Examples: Belgium, France, Northern Italy, Spain and French speaking Switzerland.
• The well-oiled machine (order)
Found in societies with low power distance and high uncertainty avoidance, carefully balanced procedures and rules, not much hierarchy. Examples: Austria, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, German speaking Switzerland.
Now that everyone is nodding their head up and down in agreement with these characterizations, i’d like to note the following:
1. Hofstede’s research is based upon a very large sample of survey data that he got from IBM. He was fortunate to find and develop that base of data. These kinds of data bases are not things that one can casually go out and find. The luck of finding data can lead one to think that they have discovered the right data base. “Interesting data” might be only that.
2. The model (and dimensions) that Hofstede and his colleagues developed are not causal. They are based upon intuition, large data sets, and simple correlation. Some of us would call it “dustbowl empiricism.” That is, there is no explanation for whether the dimensions are causally or referentially important. They “sound right” to many. Perhaps it might be appropriate to say that their work is a “loose characterization” about culture. But it surely is not complete or accurate. Everything in science is like this.
3. Hofstede and his colleagues are one of the few researchers who recognized their own biases with readers. They were self-reflective (and post-modern) about what they were, as well as regarding what they had done. They wrote on page 28 of the document I pointed to:
MANAGEMENT PROFESSORS ARE HUMAN. Not only organizations are culture bound; theories about organizations are equally culture bound. The professors who wrote the theories are children of a culture: they grew up in families, went to schools, worked for employers. Their experiences represent the material on which their thinking and writing have been based. Scholars are as human and as culturally biased as other mortals.
(See also some of the controversy that Geertz’s writings provoked a number of years ago in anthropology.)
It is almost impossible to see outside of one’s own biases, and that includes even those who work in the hard sciences. In the last analysis, almost everything that we “know,” is socially constructed.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 09:27am PT
|
In the last analysis, almost everything that we “know,” is socially constructed.
Yes
But there are 2 different systems.
One is in illusion
And one is in truth
The illusionary system is based on the the material understanding of the self.
The truth system is based on the understanding of the self in relation to the the entire cosmic manifestation ......
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 09:45am PT
|
^^^^
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 09:47am PT
|
It is almost impossible to see outside of one’s own biases,
Is this why I sometimes bang my head into things? Would society kindly consider constructing those things of softer stuff?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 10:21am PT
|
The question becomes what is meant by a social construction? If "social constructions" are a function of the evolutionary success of cooperation then we can ask, again, why is that?
Where does the potential for cooperation come from? What is its source?
Empathy for the "other" seems just as ubiquitous in human interaction as disregard and hate for the other. Where do these emotions ultimately reside? Are they simply constructions of a biology interested in its own survival?
Can we say that emotions like love for the other are part and parcel to the structure of the universe? Certainly human existence and emotion where written into the very potential of material nature at the big bang.
The first question is why is there anything and the second question is why is there what is?
In the metaphors of religion and mythology there is a wisdom that offers solace to our relationship to mystery. Dismissing myth as simply fakery and charlatanism ignores that wisdom.
Science can tell us much, but ultimately we are left with how to deal with that knowledge. We're left with how to understand and employ love, beauty, virtue, honor; we are left with the question of how to live a "good" life.
"But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding?"
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 10:37am PT
|
No, religion in America cant harm you if you're an old white straight man.
If you're gay and want to get married, or a poor young pregnant women who doesnt want to damn herself to a life of poverty, or a child who wants to learn some science , a murdered family planning doctor, or a black person 150 years ago in the South, however, the view is pretty different. But hey, no beheadings here, so its all good, right?
Bubble Children. Christ.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 10:40am PT
|
But there are 2 different systems.  ok... lets hear this out...
One is in illusion huh?
Illusion is a "system"? Is it something that is "at work" in the world? All around us? Really Werner? Can you show me any? Oh, wait... you are correct... communicating with you is illusory (the world you were looking for)
And one is in truth ah yes, there it is... the only "system" I know to be real... ok, what's the scoop...?
The illusionary system is based on the the material understanding of the self. wait, wait, what? You want me to believe that the illusion is the thinking that one can understand the material world all around, including inside ourselves... Can you show me any of that? Can you take a picture of any of it? Is it real, or have you imagined it?
The truth system is based on the understanding of the self in relation to the the entire cosmic manifestation ...... I see, you flip the script.... like rock accepting rap through "Walk this way!"
So that I understand...
The real is an illusion... and things we imagine make us a better thing for the universe...
A stark demonstration of exceptional exceptional-ism, sir.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 10:42am PT
|
Tvash
What you just described is not religion.
It's rubber stamped religion.
It's pure bullsh!t masquerading as religion.
There's so much of it that it's mainstream.
But that is the baseboard foundation of so called religion that you fools all focus on.
Thus you have no real clue what religion really is .....
As for jingus he's never even near the ball park ....
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 10:46am PT
|
Its a cozmik thang.
If cliches could power our cities and drive our cars....Braunian motion?
Tell it to the televangelists, W. We agree that America's so called religions are bullshit - yours included.
Aint no religion at all in the tvashiverse - a place where you cant swing a schroedingers cat without hitting some jaggoff proclaiming Der Truth.
Pick mine! Pick mine!
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 10:58am PT
|
Good points everyone, but especially Ward, MikeL, DMT, and Paul and Werner's last statement. And my apologies to Ward for previously misinterpreting his comments about the Vikings and British Christians.
What struck me reading Paul's comments about everything that exists being part of the potential of the Big Bang and therefore one might conclude that the capacity for both good and evil were built into the structure of the universe, was how close that comes to Hindu thought on the subject.
Their explanation for their Trinity is that the universe results from Brahma the creator, Shiva, the power and energy source, and Vishnu, the structural basis of it all. That structure (including the physical laws of this universe) according to them, is held together by love. Later on, that love is stepped down to a form we can understand by the incarnations of Vishnu represented by Krishna, Buddha, and many Indians say, Jesus also. But before the evolution of humans and human incarnations, Vishnu interacted with this planet in the form of the dominant life at the time. Hence Vishnu has also appeared as a fish, amphibian, mammal, and previous forms of humans. Vishnu's relationship to this planet includes all of the ecology and life forms, not just an anthropcentric model as in the West.
Among the world's symbol systems then, some are closer to science than others or perhaps all of them are merely a reflection of the human mind, some more complex and sophisticated than others? Or perhaps the new paradigm is to see the similarities of science to at least some of the symbol systems and maybe even come up with a new symbolism, incorporating the best of the past and more in keeping with the times?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 11:54am PT
|
"That structure (including the physical laws of this universe) according to them, is held together by love. Later on, that love is stepped down to a form we can understand by the incarnations of Vishnu"
Watch for a cameo appearance of this concept in the movie "Interstellar" - delivered by Anne Hathaway.
One can always state that the potential for what exists now was included in the beginning, about anything at all. It is a meaningless statement on its face that belongs in the same heap as statements like "I know there's something out there, but we can't know what it is". All the profundity of an empty swimming pool. I could get behind this kind of philosophical balloon bouquet more if free donuts were involved.
Had earth never formed, there would be no one here to state such a thing, or anything at all. There would be no potential or manifestation of good nor evil, which are, after all, wholly human constructs that did not exist before we invented them.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 12:09pm PT
|
"Had earth never formed, there would be no one here to state such a thing, or anything at all. There would be no potential or manifestation of good nor evil, which are, after all, wholly human constructs that did not exist before we invented them."
If the universe had never formed there would be nothing... but it did, as well the earth, as well life. Humanity is not apart from nature but a part of nature and wholly human constructs are as well the constructs of nature. When you separate humanity from nature you display a lapsed Christianity.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 12:12pm PT
|
Nope, no cigar, and no such separation, either. And no good nor evil without humans, given that we invented both.
Causation and all that rot.
Nice try on the "you're still religious" thang, though. I get that a lot. Kind of like a cop gets "where's the nearest donut shop" jokes from the general public. Freshness is definitely in the eye of the beholder - particularly when donuts are involved.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 12:25pm PT
|
No humans without nature... ultimately no good and no evil without nature. You can't separate human activity, thought, being from the nature that brought it forth. So I'll just smoke my cigar...
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
|
I do believe in the power of love - but there's not universal 'love field' we tap into. It's more like a contagious virus, a ripple, that begins with a single act, which begets more acts that radiate outward. Some of us are more susceptible to 'catching it' than others, and that varies for all of us moment by moment. We can train our 'immune systems' to lower its defenses or raise them. Love is the actions of individuals. It's an inherent power we as individuals either wield nor not.
Standard, garden variety karma, basically.
Oh, and Paul, you can separate human activity from nature if there are no humans and therefore no good nor evil. Good and evil are condiments we, as humans, spread over nature, which does, in fact, include us (THE REVELATION!!!). They don't exist at all anywhere without humans to do the spreading, however.
A poor attempt at a dodge, really. Like watching a monkey try to f*#k a football.
My original point with regards to the inherent ridiculousness of your original "profound surround" statement stands.
This might shed some light on things. Love in action:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/11/17/364136732/in-a-dutch-town-a-glowing-bike-path-inspired-by-van-gogh?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2042
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 12:48pm PT
|
"They don't exist at all anywhere without humans to do the spreading, however."
Yes, and humans don't exist anywhere without nature to do the spreading.
Monkeys and footballs? Perhaps best if you lay off the porn for awhile.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 12:51pm PT
|
Another pour from the word blender.
Anyhoo -
More love...
Picked up one of these after a trail run yesterday. The three of us agreed it was the best ice cream bar any of us had ever tucked into.
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
|
I doubt humans invented good and evil. Same as I doubt they invented black and white.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 12:55pm PT
|
As an exercise - define good and evil in a universe without us. What would that look like to an alien observer, exactly?
For example, what wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, or temperature, or gravitational field strength/geometry, constitutes 'good'?
We should strap a Blue Bunny Turtle Bar to all future interstellar probes to let potential finders know that we're a species worth befriending rather than annihilating. They should keep just fine in deep space.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!