Re: Biological = trivial?

Robert Snower (rs222@WORLDNET.ATT.NET)
Sat, 20 Jul 1996 04:12:56 GMT

At 07:04 PM 7/18/96 +0000, Adrian Tanner wrote:

>I think I am able to present a good defence as to why widespread, but less
>that fully universal, cultural phenopmena are of very great significance,
>and that, moreover, this significance has not, to my knowledge, been
>adequately acknowledged within our discipline.
> . . .` But I am saying those who
>only study the universal in culture, even given all its glorious
>surface-level cultural variety, are missing out on one of the particularly
>significant aspects of culture, which is its freedom (indeterminancy sounds
>more intellectual, and may cover what I am alluding to), including the
>freedom to *not* have this or that type of cultural practice.
I would like to accept your offer of the first paragraph. In your previous
post you used the phrase "entirely social, and therefore non-obligitory."
>From what standpoint do you see this necessary connection? I am sure it
never occurs to many people to require such a link. Are you saying freedom
is part of the definition of "social?" Can there not be a society which is
totally unfree, and still be society? Then, above, you hedge a little bit,
and say "one of the particularly significant aspects of culture, which is
its freedom . . ." Are you referring only to Homo sapiens? Do animals
have societies? But not culture?

Best wishes. R. Snower

entirely social, and therefore non-obigitory