Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish wrote, "Also, we talk about
> porous/buffered selves and porous/buffered
> cultures. This is not good because without further
> definition it seems to disallow a porous self
> existing in a buffered culture. So we need further
> clarification on that point--can a culture be
> hybrid (roughly 50-50); can it be majority
> porous/buffered?"
>
> It's a while since I read that short book on
> Charles Taylor's thought. The "porous self" and
> the "buffered self" are his terms. I suppose that
> a society can be mostly supportive of porosity or
> bufferedness, but that within it there may be
> minority groups of dissenters. If the standard
> view of Democritus is right, then he and his
> disciples might have been a minority group within
> a society in which the porous self was
> predominant.
This I could see.
>
> A society could be tolerant; it could allow porous
> selves and buffered selves to coexist without
> disabilities. This would be a liberal society.
> I'm not sure that history will show that such
> societies have staying power. The United States
> have done (historically speaking) rather well in
> this regard (though with intolerance in other
> areas), but I'm not sure this will continue to be
> true.
In point of fact it doesn't matter whether a society is tolerant or not *so far as the actual belief systems of its constituents*.
Just as the Spanish had "crytpo Jews", so might woke society contain crypto porous selves.
>
> "I maintain that selves who'd self-label as
> "enlightened", or "worldly" (therefore buffered,
> as I understand it) might make an exception for
> legitimate deeply felt emotions. I think you're
> far too ready to see unadultered examples of
> either "self"--as you describe them they're little
> more than caricatures--and I'm beginning to wonder
> if Taylor's model is not too hopelessly and
> artificially constrained to actually make any
> sense in the real world--and by this I mean to
> either a porous or a buffered culture.
>
> "It is like he found a few identifiable
> traits/tendencies and is trying to come up with a
> Grand Unified Theory of sociology. I'm afraid that
> it's not going to be that simple."
>
> Sure -- I imagine a social theory must always be
> simpler than the reality it attempts to
> illuminate.
>
> "...here's a real, current story.
>
> "We have three cats. In Feb of 2021 one was
> diagnosed with feline lymphoma and we were advised
> to make preparations for as gentle a euthanasia as
> available and that this would be needed within
> weeks, and maybe 2 months at the most. As of this
> date he's still alive with no apparent ill effect;
> he was seen last spring by a different vet who
> confirmed the diagnosis and prognosis, recognized
> that the earlier prognosis had not come to pass,
> and had no explanation for it.
>
> "So is this a miracle? If it's not a miracle, note
> well that neither we, nor the vet, has made any
> attempt at explaining his good fortune in terms of
> materialistic science. So we just filed it away
> under 'we just don't know'."
>
> Sure. A possible explanation is that the test(s)
> for feline lymphoma are less accurate than was
> assumed.
Two separate tests.
> It's possible, too, that there's an
> as-yet-undetected but ultimately physical
> interaction between you and your cat, that helps
> his immune system, etc. Both of these would allow
> the buffered self to remain intact.
However, that's not what either us or the 2nd vet attempted to do. It was just a smile at the unexplained "good" fortune of the cat.
And yet I'd suspect that my wife, the vet, and me might honestly be characterized as buffered selves *most of the time*.
> Or it could
> be proposed, from a minority point of view over
> against official U. S. society (public education,
> science funding, etc.) that humankind has a
> relationship, of divine origin, with animals,
> which has been mostly lost since the Fall, but
> that is "arch-natural." There is a book by a vet
> named Joanne Stefanatos called Animals and Man: A
> State of Blessedness, that relates stories of
> saints who had a sort of Paradisal relationship
> with otherwise wild, shy or dangerous, animals.
>
> [
alaskasbakery.com]-
> dvm-cva-cvc-mhma-wildlife-rehabilitator/
>
> It could be, then, that vestiges of humankind's
> relationship as God's "viceregents" remain; your
> love for your cat effected something like a
> miracle.
>
> Who knows?
Which, as I understand Taylor, is fine for porous selves, but not to be expected from buffered selves.
I am absolutely fine without an answer of any kind for very many topics; life has taught me that, at least. Most people I know are, too, to a greater or lesser degree. Again, by far the most pure buffered selves I've encountered are in literature, as representative characters.
>
> In any event, I'm glad to read of your cat's
> continued companionship with your family.
>
> We have had two kittens added to our previous
> four, for two weeks now, Giles and Aino
> (officially Jenny).
I enjoy our discussions, Dale, but I judge Taylor's hypothesis as I understand it to be unsupportable. It's a waste of time, really. He's far too rigid and far too--well, it looks to me like he's not dealt much with people, or if he has, he's being quite subjectively selective about what he's seen. He is forcing his data through the eye of a needle of his own device.
Normally, I try not to be prematurely judgmental about new ideas, but Taylor's is pretty clearly a doozy.
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~