Hypocrisy - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15247739
Local Localist wrote:
Yeah, but see you can only speak of it in general, theoretical terms. A culture isn't a tangible aspect of society, and is comprised of more tangible elements such as technology and social movements.



Sure -- I'm not trying to be gratuitously formalistic. Run with it. Make it your own.

However, I *will* reiterate that 'dynamics' can be found, that are inherently 'dominant-and-subordinate', or 'higher and lower', in terms of *scale*, like the regional-culture-over-nationalist-aspirations example.

I would readily make an argument for *any* level-pairings -- of how a 'lower' one relates dynamically to a 'higher' one, and vice-versa.


Local Localist wrote:
This is the issue with specifying 'regional' culture as well. In the modern era Australia is far more culturally proximal to Canada than to its nearest neighbours. The Catholic Church has influence in regions around the world. Factors such as the internet and the 'informationisation' of economies have further linked such trans-continental cultural spheres together, and yet none of this is covered by a regionalist conception of culture.



So in *this* instance the 'region' could be said to be *inter-continental*.

To *extend* the 'complexity' of the analysis, I might go one 'level' higher, and say that the 'AUKUS', or 'Five Eyes' international organization is limited by its similarity of economies / economics, currently overfinancialized, and *limiting* (like a ceiling) the 'regional culture' 'below' it (due to lack of continuous economic development / GDP growth).

*But* -- 'regional culture' *is* supported, as a matter of course / as a matter of *existence*, from below, by the nation-state, etc., all the way down to newborns and animals, in one way or another.


Local Localist wrote:
Yes, but this is what I mean. What are 'events'? Are economic trends not events? It seems to me that the term denotes temporality, but within that realm it could be used to describe anything.



Sure, certainly. I won't argue.

In *this* instance I'd say maybe a certain *date*, at the 'event' level -- like *this*:



On 20 February 2020, stock markets across the world suddenly crashed



The IMF blamed 'heightened trade and geopolitical tensions' as the main reason for the slowdown, citing Brexit and the China – United States trade war as primary reasons for slowdown in 2019, while other economists blamed liquidity issues.[15][16]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_stock_market_crash



...Could be indicated by a large colored sphere on the 'event' shelf of the framework for that day, with a vertical cylindrical column *connector* up to the 'economic trends' level -- so that would be a way to depict it schematically with the original framework.
User avatar
By Local Localist
#15247744
ckaihatsu wrote:However, I *will* reiterate that 'dynamics' can be found, that are inherently 'dominant-and-subordinate', or 'higher and lower', in terms of *scale*, like the regional-culture-over-nationalist-aspirations example.

I would readily make an argument for *any* level-pairings -- of how a 'lower' one relates dynamically to a 'higher' one, and vice-versa.

...

To *extend* the 'complexity' of the analysis, I might go one 'level' higher, and say that the 'AUKUS', or 'Five Eyes' international organization is limited by its similarity of economies / economics, currently overfinancialized, and *limiting* (like a ceiling) the 'regional culture' 'below' it (due to lack of continuous economic development / GDP growth).

*But* -- 'regional culture' *is* supported, as a matter of course / as a matter of *existence*, from below, by the nation-state, etc., all the way down to newborns and animals, in one way or another.


Sure, but the individual, the institution and even the mode of production are forces directly linked to one another, and you can distinctly order the levels of power and influence there. In this instance, a level up from 'nation-state' would be 'American geopolitical network' or something of that sort, rather than 'Anglospheric regional culture'. The cultural background which brought about the political ties are intangible, where the ties themselves are concrete in the same fashion as the nation-state is.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15247750
Local Localist wrote:
Sure, but the individual, the institution and even the mode of production are forces directly linked to one another, and you can distinctly order the levels of power and influence there. In this instance, a level up from 'nation-state' would be 'American geopolitical network' or something of that sort, rather than 'Anglospheric regional culture'. The cultural background which brought about the political ties are intangible, where the ties themselves are concrete in the same fashion as the nation-state is.



Please include me on the 'Acknowledgements' page of your next book.


= D

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/157379487548[…]

Ahmat Sila, Russian bro! Did you vote on the refe[…]

Truss vs Sunak

She campaigned as a free market supporter. People[…]

:D