[Royce]

So, I have been thinking about starting a thread like this for quite some time. There are so many elements I want to bring to the plate, but I will just throw some stuff out there and see where this thread goes.

Some might suggest that the western civilization is in the middle of its closing stages of collapse. Some parallels have been drawn with the collapse of the Roman empire. Although it is still unclear what really caused the collapse(I think?) there are suggestions that a few key points might have described, at least, its symptoms of collapse. So I thought I should just mention these points and see if we can see some parallels to the western empire.

First there was an increasing gap between rich and poor, wealth touched fewer and fewer hands.

A more intricate and complicated bureaucracy.

The standing armies and focus on the military was increased.

The amount of "bread and circus" provided to the public was also increasing.

If we look at the western empire, can we agree that all of those points are, at least, noticeable?. What we can agree upon is that the empire will collapse at some point, it is only a matter of how and when. We might also substitute the word collapse for transformation, but I will come back to that.

I also think that we can agree that when I say "western empire", I am mainly talking about the US, although the tentacles of Mcworld are seen almost everywhere on the globe. To me the world is turning into a giant mall, and the global village is certainly not a conspiracy anymore. It is right here. Can we even mention one thing that can not be traced back to a corporation of some sorts. Anything that does not have a price on its head, or will have in the near future?.

The amount of bread and circus that we have available now is really mindblowing. Instant access to everything all the time. That is what kids grow up into nowadays. To me it seems crucial that some kind of guidance is needed so that this does not run completely amok. Of course, the net have its wonderful perks, but it is also important to see that corporations own everything in that space too. Always selling something, commercialized to the bone.

So if this global culture is like 90% kitch, recycled garbage that has no cultural value at all(famous people spewing out garbage) what would you actually want to save? What is worth keeping in the western empire? If the collapse comes what aspect of our culture is worth recycling to future generations?.

I think this is a really big deal, because I am reasonably convinced that this empire is going to crash, and what then?
What will be the tipping point, can be many things, including the points mentioned earlier.

Our cultural programming has to change at some point, along with this cultural collapse/transformation. What will this new programming consist of?

I must stress the importance of discussing this, because it can happen any day now. Or in 50-100 years, but why take the risk of just sitting back and ignore this, when the consequences are so dramatic.

[Wielokropek]

You say that this collapse or transformation could happen any time, but what do you really think it would look like?

Is it going to be economic collapse that fuels social upheaval, or is it going to be a slow death, a simple fading of western culture into obscurity and a different kind of globalized culture coming to the fore. I'd probably hedge my bets on the latter, but by no means would I exclude the former as a possibility.

Also, what are the consequences of either type of collapse? You say they're dramatic, but I really don't know.

I don't even think there will be any kind of big collapse or revolutionary change in culture, though. I think it seems more probable that as any culture becomes increasingly promotional of individual gain and pleasure, and the more globalized or multicultural any culture becomes, the more the very notion of culture dies. I guess it's all shades of semantic apocalypse to me.

Maybe we'll all just end up like Canada.

[Callan S.]

It wont crash - the people will simply up the backing currency for all money - death. People fear death, and suddenly money has some use if it gets them away from death.

It's a bit old fashioned to start a war (just so expensive these days as well), so the whole terrorist threat is really damn useful to keep the old fear of death going.

Worse comes to worse, the people with money, either directly or indirectly (the police) have the loyalty of lots of people with little imagination and guns on their hip. They'll employ them in a way that could be interpreted as fine, but also employ them in a way that who's gunna argue whether it was legit - only someone with similar forces could hope to put any of them in jail. Or before a firing squad.

Or even just the threat of pulling that out will again invoke the old death fears.

The city/town I live in has a history of some miners who, about 150 years ago, stood up against being taxed to the wall for the benefit of the few. Gunned down, most of them. Eureka stockade.

Now I watch TV and news reports where the cops don't consider risking their lives in the slightest - lethal force as soon as anything that even remotely looks like risk is coming up. I mean, firemen/women know they risk their lives - even paramedics have some dicey, dangerous patients. But cops - nah. Cowardice all the way.

[Royce]

You say that this collapse or transformation could happen any time, but what do you really think it would look like?

Good question. This is what I try to get out of this thread really. How will this transformation affect culture in general.

If, for example, this gap between rich and poor is to be preserved, the "dumbing down" of the masses has to increase to a point where people do not even notice that there is a gap between rich and poor. They do not care. In their entertainment zombie state, all that matters is to be entertained. This includes infotainment(the news).

If this trend continues for decades, what do you think is left of intellectual debate, critical thinking and so on?.

Also, what are the consequences of either type of collapse? You say they're dramatic, but I really don't know.

You are right, it might not be dramatic at all. I could not possibly know that it will turn out to be dramatic. I can only speculate that if the system in place will gradually disappear, and it is no longer an option to buy food in a store, the result of a scenario like that might be dramatic for many people.

[Wielokropek]

I don't really have a high opinion of the news (if you're calling it infotainment, I doubt you do either). It never really conveys what I'd call informative or important information. And the thing is, I, at least, am not interested in doing research into the political state of the world, what my true social conditions are, or whatever factors influence any kind of vast social power dynamic. There might be a lot of information about these things out there, but if I'm not interested in finding credible resources and developing a well justified opinion (or what I think is a well justified opinion), then the information will reside in a permanent blind spot.

So a society in which people never actively consider the consequences of their social status doesn't seem too far fetched to me. And if the infotainment doesn't just seem like blind entertainment, but makes one feel like they have a good grasp on the situation, then why would they actively seek out information that proves otherwise?

Now, I'm not saying that this is or would be true about everyone. There could be any number of reasons someone would actively seek to learn more about the true nature of society. I do, however, believe that whoever does learn more about their society would ultimately just belong to another social in-group. Intellectual debate and critical thinking live on, but just because there are groups who debate and think critically doesn't mean that these groups could ever actually affect social change.

I suppose it would generally go something like, "leave the philosophizing to the intellectuals and the policy-making to the politicians; but if you ask me, I could do it better than any of them." I mean just look at voter turn-out. Most people don't seem to care or have time for politics, but the political wheel keeps spinning, and I bet a whole lot a non-voters would still be willing to tell you "what's going on." Just look at me! I know that I know very little, but here I am, running my mouth.

If there is any kind of vast economic collapse, however, and the majority of people don't have any access to basic necessities (i.e. food, water, shelter, etc.), then that's a whole other situation. Maybe society would turn on ousting a scapegoat, maybe the rioting would be controlled and the wealthy would simply flee to safer waters. In that case, I have no idea how things could pan out or what would happen to any western culture.

[Royce]

I agree that in a society, everyone is a part of a kind of group think, whether you want to or not. Ideas and thoughts in general are just recycling anyway, bouncing of previous ideas etc.

So does that mean that cultures also are about recurrence and recycling? When a culture collapses, it spends years, decades, just to bite its own tail once more?.

I mean, it seems like cultures split two ways. Either internal cultures(focus on theology) or external(scientific,rational). An internal culture spend its time perfecting the ways of the soul, until it crashes because it is no based on 100% truth. An external culture(ours) will do the same, because when you have cultures who have a certain mindset,either spiritual or not, it will eventually lead to destructive conclusions. So a spiritual culture will be replaced by a rational one and vice verca ad infinitum

These are just thoughts by Morris Berman by the way. He might be wrong. If not, we might be heading(following his logic) into a cultural transformation consisting of religious thinking, magic and irrationality. The signs of this can be seen in consumer mentality, entertainment and so on.

[Wielokropek]

I disagree with Berman.

The dichotomy of external and internal cultures doesn't seem particularly valid to me. I can't think of a single culture that is or was centered wholly around dogma, nor can I think of a culture that is or was centered solely around rationality. I certainly wouldn't call our own culture external. Sure, we've had extreme technological advancements over the last century or two, advancements that couldn't have happened without scientific rationality, but huge proportions of the population have been religious all throughout these last few centuries.

Another problem is that I have no idea what it means for a culture to die, or what even constitutes a culture. Think of the Roman culture. Many (probably most) of the unique mannerisms of the Roman people have died off, but Rome has doubtless made at least philosophical and legal innovations that live on in our culture.

If a culture is only the mannerisms of the people, then it's probably something that simply changes over time as new technological advancements or political changes allow or force people to act differently (or the culture dies off if the people are killed). And if a culture consists of the innovations of any population that allow them to behave in different ways, then those innovations can probably survive the collapse of the society that houses the culture so long as not all the people die and their records are not destroyed.

Besides, if Berman is right, then as the general populace sees the world increasingly as magical science and confirmations of their cognitive biases, we should see less scientific progress. But there's tons of scientific innovation happening right now, even as news segments broadcast their daily tripe.

[Royce]

I apologize for describing his thoughts a bit poorly. His point is that a culture is structured around a certain way of thinking. Within that structure there is room for diversity in thought. Western culture is rationally structured.

One example of the opposite is Europe in the sixth or seventh century(Could be a bit earlier). The so called dark ages, where whole libraries were burnt down, and literacy itself was almost eradicated. 

[Wielokropek]

Alright, makes sense. We certainly emphasize the importance of the scientist, and I imagine the importance of the priest would have been emphasized in 7th century Europe.

Does Berman provide any kind of definition of what a culture is or what it means for one to die (or change into an internal or external culture)? Without operational definitions, the claim that a culture can cycle between internal and external states is kind of moot.

In any case, I doubt that an emphasis of commercialism, pleasure, and cognitive bias-reinforcing media could even change our society such that it is no longer dependent on scientific rationality. As long as we retain our current level of technological dependency, there will be vested interests in maintaining the scientific status quo. And if we did, somehow, fail to provide enough of a rudimentary education to encourage those who would become scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. then we would probably become dependent on immigrant intellectuals.

[Madness]

I'll have to reread the thread before I go for having a say here but, Royce, are many of your posts here based off the writings of Berman? If so, I'd like to read up a bit first.

[Royce]

Does Berman provide any kind of definition of what a culture is or what it means for one to die (or change into an internal or external culture)? Without operational definitions, the claim that a culture can cycle between internal and external states is kind of moot.

I might have to come back to this, because I am reading his work now, and it is three books.

As far as I can tell each mindset that structures a culture only has a certain aspect of truth in it. So when you push that structure far enough, it will in a sense become destructive. You can not blame science/reason for the present state this culture is in, it only lay open the possibilities for this techno/corporate culture to emerge. People choose this direction themselves, using science/reason as a tool.

When it comes to cultures cycling between internal/external, he uses the Roman Empires transformation as an example of going from classical thinking/culture towards the aforementioned dark ages, where this kind of thinking were considered heresy. He mentions various monastic groups of people who were able to preserve books from this classic era, and even though they did not understand the content of these books, they did not destroy them. Slowly people started to show interest in these classical works, and then a new transformation slowly started.

So it was just luck and coincidence really, that not every little trace from the classical era was eradicated. Either way it is just guessing what the next transformation will look like, but history can be used to suggest certain predictions.

I'll have to reread the thread before I go for having a say here but, Royce, are many of your posts here based off the writings of Berman? If so, I'd like to read up a bit first.

Well, to a certain degree yes. I used him as a source of the historical arguments. As i said, I am reading the first of three books, so blame me and not him if I use him out of context

[Royce]

I liked this passage by british philosopher Stuart Hampshire.

"If the supernatural claims about the Creator`s intentions are dismissed, there remains no sufficient empirical reason to beleive that there is such a thing as the historical development of mankind as a whole..... What we see in history is the ebb and flow of different populations at different stages of social development, interacting with each other and exhibiting no common pattern of development. Using older historical categories , we can reasonably speak of the various populations flourishing and becoming powerful at some stage and then falling into decadence and becoming comparatively weak; and historians can reasonably look for some general causes of these rises and falls. Even if some such general causes can be found, they will not by themselves point to a destiny, and to an order of development, for mankind as a whole"

[Royce]

I will just post a talk by Terence Mckenna here. Some interesting points about culture indeed. he starts the talk at about 4 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0gsHFatPp0

[Royce]

If you have been asked to describe what a culture is, what would you say?

TM has some interesting descriptions:  "Culture is a virtual reality made of language."  "Cultures are boundary defining engines".