These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
In a message dated 5/3/2001 9:55:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
wbarowy@lesley.edu writes:
> Giddens reminds us that social theory encompasses its own activity, reflects
> back on itself... and this is sobering.
>
Yes, this is certainly epistemology's influence on the social sciences. I do
suspect that this is different then culture. My thinking is that culture
separates itself from individuals in that it is present in the collective and
is not a structural aspect of human development. It is a layer on top of or
a strand running in congruency with a person's existence: that sometimes
connects and sometimes intrudes and sometimes is invisible. I think the
importance of making this distinction is it allows for culture to be a
viable, measurable variable; as a I have alluded to before I believe the most
suitable term for the measurable quantity of culture would be Syllogism.
What do you think?
Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:05 PDT