17 February 2010
SDOH
For Jose Ortega y Gasset, there was really only one ontology. There was really only one reality, or at least one that matters to us. The true being with which all struggle is life and death, me and my environment. The quality of my life, and the quality of my death. And these, to some extent, maybe even to a large extent, are determined by powers outside of any single one of us. This, to me, is the fundamental meaning of the social. CRQ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
interesting. who is gasset again? i forget.
also/however, doesn't this contradict your earlier view (can't remember which blog) that every individual is 100% responsible for everything that happens to them?
p.s. it's reading week next week. you should come visit for a few days. there's a big comfy futon and a warm stove just calling yr name.
The fundamental meaning of "the social" is that things are (largely)out of our control/external?
I thought "the social" was where a bunch of people from Winnipeg rented a curling club community room, and got their drunk on while listening to classic rock.
I have so much to learn.
Really though, I suppose you could have the 100% responsible on an individual level, and a 40% (largely) on the social level.
But is that what you mean?
If I were to describe it in percentages, I would say it comes in waves of 0-100% for both of them (individual and social infuence), and you have to figure out which is which, like the old parable.
"Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and
the wisdom to know the difference."
100% waves, exactly.
The two are not mutually exhaustible, and can exist in full presence and/or absence of each other.
Both are natural complexes, with prevalence and absence (alescence if you want to be very obscurely technical).
There's my philosophy for the day.
As for reading week, that's this week for us in upper Canada, sorry, heheh.
d'oh.
sharma and i have a long running convo about nature vs nurture, with the conclusion always being that it's endlessly bi-directional (her term, not mine, but i like it). the conclusion (to us) seems to be that culture will always emerge as a "natural" product, that something innate in us forms teams and creates systems around those teams.
Post a Comment