“Until the early 1300s, the length of an hour in London could vary from 38 minutes to 82 minutes. It wasn't because they had lousy clocks in the Middle Ages. They just had a different attitude toward the passage of that mysterious thing called time.
But in that extraordinary century, medieval craftsmen invented the mechanical clock, which tolled equal hours. It was one of the most important developments in the history of civilization and the paramount accomplishment of medieval technology. Within only a few decades, it pushed all its predecessors -- water clocks, hourglasses, candle clocks and sundials -- into obsolescence. More important, it forced the Western world into a new, uniform time-keeping standard that endures to this day.”
Thanks Chris, apologies for the hyperbole. Your comments often send me off to get better educated. I recently found that my county library participates in the US Inter Library Loan system so now I can borrow almost anything for a few weeks. I’ve ordered Illich’s “Tools for Conviviality”.
I see the creation of the variety of human cultures as the natural unfolding of the cosmos. Also natural is the conflict between cultures. And also is the ability for cultures to create various ideals, and to struggle to manifest/maintain them. It is only very recently that we have created a single planet-wide cultural veneer under which “an immense diversity of global cultures” can thrive. It seems to me that the closest analogue to our current situation was the Roman Empire, and it was certainly not what we want, in general, to emulate. This is new territory for human civilization. Are Ivan Illich’s critiques helpful? Certainly as a critic, but constructively? I’ll take a look.
<a few days later>
Illich was writing 50 years ago. Do we still have “an immense diversity of cultures”? To some degree, yes, but certainly there has been a lot of attenuation of cultural distinctiveness. And such attenuation will continue. It seems to me that celebration of individual differences may be essential ground for pushback.
Thanks for taking the time to look into this further. As is clear from Stranger Worlds, I esteem Illich's work which I view as exemplary critique on the one hand, but also as grounded upon very positive ideals of communal autonomy. Precisely because Illich's targets are widely accepted institutions in contemporary modernity, it is very easy to misread his purposes - and to my mind even well-read Illich scholars misread him on at least one topic. I keep returning to him, and am always challenged to rethink my assumptions. I could ask for no more from anyone!
"It is only very recently that we have created a single planet-wide cultural veneer under which 'an immense diversity of global cultures' can thrive. It seems to me that the closest analogue to our current situation was the Roman Empire, and it was certainly not what we want, in general, to emulate. This is new territory for human civilization."
This is an absolutely acute observation, Frank, that speaks very poignantly to our situation. I note that we in the European-influenced cultures fall back to the Roman Empire as a reference, but let's not forget the 'pax mongolica' that ruled Eurasia and allowed great exchange of ideas under the largest land empire, and also a number of Chinese dynasties that controlled up to three times the area as Rome. We should also not forget the British Empire, which took over a quarter of the planet, from which the United States and its allies have arguably taken over the reins. But whichever point of reference we choose for empire, your observation remains valid: we have no positive template for the situation we are facing.
I believe that our diversity of cultures, while certainly 'attenuated' (as you say) remains very much in play - and furthermore, that within the United States the impression of monoculture can be misleading, since the legacy media thrives on telling parallel stories (alignments in funding create alignments in narrative). While there are certainly forces attempting to maintain hegemony, the external imposition of order inevitably evokes an escalation of chaos. Without wanting to open a tangent, the political situation in Germany at the moment speaks of a collision between bureaucratic orthodoxy and individual citizens - I suspect this situation is playing out in many nations. The opportunities are, I hope, equal to the risks.
Many thanks for this comment, and for all your thoughtful contributions.
It seems to me that Illich takes a dim view of all changes in human culture past hunter-gatherer societies. I don’t. In general, I see the arc of human cultures as a cosmic plus, with many retrenchments along the way, of course.
I don’t see our present era as one of retrenchment, but it does seem to be one of existential danger, and many things are badly out of kilter. This is especially true of human communication, and of human connection. I’m optimistic that if civilization continues, we’ll eventually get the disruptions caused by our own run-away technology and bureaucracies back on track.
This is the second time that you've voiced this position, which doesn't seem entirely fair to Illich! The issue may come from encountering him via the purposes I have put him too. But even in this one piece, Illich is in support of the book - which is several millennia beyond hunter-gatherers! The bicycle is another contemporary tool Illich speaks highly of in both Energy and Equity and Tools for Conviviality (perhaps my favourite of his books).
Perhaps your view of 'the arc of human cultures as a cosmic plus' will inevitably put you into tension with Illich's perspective, which is critical of several highly specific transformations of thought and culture in the last millennium. Think of him less as arguing for a return to the past (this is not his position at all), but rather as writing reactionary polemics in the 1960s and 1970s with an eye to defending the immense diversity of global culture at that time from being swallowed up into technological monoculture.
Many thanks, as always, for your thoughtful remarks!
Thanks for writing about this, Chris. I've been mulling over the information analogy since reading Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell, which looks at the DNA/RNA system as a form of information transfer. He is smart enough to consider the problem of metaphor, and even asks whether "information" is merely metaphorical, coming to the conclusion that it is not. For one on the literary side of things, I have to question what "mere metaphor" actually means and how we can talk about anything without metaphor. Hoping to address this question in a piece of my own... maybe this week if I find the time. The problem with seeing DNA/RNA processes as information transfer and computing is that it implies an intelligent reader... which would be who exactly? Do we perceive ecosystems as information transfer and computing? When a bee moves pollen around, is that information? Could be...? But is that difinitively what it is? You get my drift... Cheers, And thanks for the thoughts.
Thanks for this comment, Asa! The metaphor of DNA/RNA as information transfer is another symptom of the same shift in metaphor this piece discusses, and as I have argued elsewhere risks severely misrepresenting the deep history of life.
As for metaphors: with my fictionalist philosopher hat on, my position is that metaphor is so intimately caught up with our thought and language that it cannot be excised. The suggestion that you can strip all of it away and present things 'as they really are' is quite absurd and hilarious! 🙂
If you do write the piece you mentioned, please drop by and share a link here in this thread for completeness.
Daniel Boostin The Discovers gives a history of time keeping
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discoverers?wprov=sfti1
Which is summarized here
A Brief History of Time Keeping
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/11/16/a-brief-history-of-time-keeping/1735193f-0c41-4657-af73-16e7b54a9665/
“Until the early 1300s, the length of an hour in London could vary from 38 minutes to 82 minutes. It wasn't because they had lousy clocks in the Middle Ages. They just had a different attitude toward the passage of that mysterious thing called time.
But in that extraordinary century, medieval craftsmen invented the mechanical clock, which tolled equal hours. It was one of the most important developments in the history of civilization and the paramount accomplishment of medieval technology. Within only a few decades, it pushed all its predecessors -- water clocks, hourglasses, candle clocks and sundials -- into obsolescence. More important, it forced the Western world into a new, uniform time-keeping standard that endures to this day.”
Thanks, Bob! The standardisation of time had a far bigger impact than we usually appreciate.
AGREE #FBagr_1: Possible Cultural Diversity?
COMMENT
Thanks Chris, apologies for the hyperbole. Your comments often send me off to get better educated. I recently found that my county library participates in the US Inter Library Loan system so now I can borrow almost anything for a few weeks. I’ve ordered Illich’s “Tools for Conviviality”.
I see the creation of the variety of human cultures as the natural unfolding of the cosmos. Also natural is the conflict between cultures. And also is the ability for cultures to create various ideals, and to struggle to manifest/maintain them. It is only very recently that we have created a single planet-wide cultural veneer under which “an immense diversity of global cultures” can thrive. It seems to me that the closest analogue to our current situation was the Roman Empire, and it was certainly not what we want, in general, to emulate. This is new territory for human civilization. Are Ivan Illich’s critiques helpful? Certainly as a critic, but constructively? I’ll take a look.
<a few days later>
Illich was writing 50 years ago. Do we still have “an immense diversity of cultures”? To some degree, yes, but certainly there has been a lot of attenuation of cultural distinctiveness. And such attenuation will continue. It seems to me that celebration of individual differences may be essential ground for pushback.
Dear Frank,
Thanks for taking the time to look into this further. As is clear from Stranger Worlds, I esteem Illich's work which I view as exemplary critique on the one hand, but also as grounded upon very positive ideals of communal autonomy. Precisely because Illich's targets are widely accepted institutions in contemporary modernity, it is very easy to misread his purposes - and to my mind even well-read Illich scholars misread him on at least one topic. I keep returning to him, and am always challenged to rethink my assumptions. I could ask for no more from anyone!
"It is only very recently that we have created a single planet-wide cultural veneer under which 'an immense diversity of global cultures' can thrive. It seems to me that the closest analogue to our current situation was the Roman Empire, and it was certainly not what we want, in general, to emulate. This is new territory for human civilization."
This is an absolutely acute observation, Frank, that speaks very poignantly to our situation. I note that we in the European-influenced cultures fall back to the Roman Empire as a reference, but let's not forget the 'pax mongolica' that ruled Eurasia and allowed great exchange of ideas under the largest land empire, and also a number of Chinese dynasties that controlled up to three times the area as Rome. We should also not forget the British Empire, which took over a quarter of the planet, from which the United States and its allies have arguably taken over the reins. But whichever point of reference we choose for empire, your observation remains valid: we have no positive template for the situation we are facing.
I believe that our diversity of cultures, while certainly 'attenuated' (as you say) remains very much in play - and furthermore, that within the United States the impression of monoculture can be misleading, since the legacy media thrives on telling parallel stories (alignments in funding create alignments in narrative). While there are certainly forces attempting to maintain hegemony, the external imposition of order inevitably evokes an escalation of chaos. Without wanting to open a tangent, the political situation in Germany at the moment speaks of a collision between bureaucratic orthodoxy and individual citizens - I suspect this situation is playing out in many nations. The opportunities are, I hope, equal to the risks.
Many thanks for this comment, and for all your thoughtful contributions.
Chris.
SEE DIFFERENTLY #FBdiff_1: It’s not all downhill
It seems to me that Illich takes a dim view of all changes in human culture past hunter-gatherer societies. I don’t. In general, I see the arc of human cultures as a cosmic plus, with many retrenchments along the way, of course.
I don’t see our present era as one of retrenchment, but it does seem to be one of existential danger, and many things are badly out of kilter. This is especially true of human communication, and of human connection. I’m optimistic that if civilization continues, we’ll eventually get the disruptions caused by our own run-away technology and bureaucracies back on track.
Hi Frank,
This is the second time that you've voiced this position, which doesn't seem entirely fair to Illich! The issue may come from encountering him via the purposes I have put him too. But even in this one piece, Illich is in support of the book - which is several millennia beyond hunter-gatherers! The bicycle is another contemporary tool Illich speaks highly of in both Energy and Equity and Tools for Conviviality (perhaps my favourite of his books).
Perhaps your view of 'the arc of human cultures as a cosmic plus' will inevitably put you into tension with Illich's perspective, which is critical of several highly specific transformations of thought and culture in the last millennium. Think of him less as arguing for a return to the past (this is not his position at all), but rather as writing reactionary polemics in the 1960s and 1970s with an eye to defending the immense diversity of global culture at that time from being swallowed up into technological monoculture.
Many thanks, as always, for your thoughtful remarks!
Chris.
Thanks for writing about this, Chris. I've been mulling over the information analogy since reading Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell, which looks at the DNA/RNA system as a form of information transfer. He is smart enough to consider the problem of metaphor, and even asks whether "information" is merely metaphorical, coming to the conclusion that it is not. For one on the literary side of things, I have to question what "mere metaphor" actually means and how we can talk about anything without metaphor. Hoping to address this question in a piece of my own... maybe this week if I find the time. The problem with seeing DNA/RNA processes as information transfer and computing is that it implies an intelligent reader... which would be who exactly? Do we perceive ecosystems as information transfer and computing? When a bee moves pollen around, is that information? Could be...? But is that difinitively what it is? You get my drift... Cheers, And thanks for the thoughts.
Thanks for this comment, Asa! The metaphor of DNA/RNA as information transfer is another symptom of the same shift in metaphor this piece discusses, and as I have argued elsewhere risks severely misrepresenting the deep history of life.
As for metaphors: with my fictionalist philosopher hat on, my position is that metaphor is so intimately caught up with our thought and language that it cannot be excised. The suggestion that you can strip all of it away and present things 'as they really are' is quite absurd and hilarious! 🙂
If you do write the piece you mentioned, please drop by and share a link here in this thread for completeness.
With unlimited love,
Chris.
Here it is: https://analogymagazine.substack.com/p/information-the-latest-metaphor-of