User Name
Pass Word:


check out pink floyd on shoutcast!
Previous | Next by ben 15 October, 2003 - 7:58 AM

i find it interesting the ways in which people from various backgrounds treat doing studies of raves. this isn't too surprising, considering i come from an anthropology background. so i break things down into cultural systems, i have my own vocabulary that i use and define things i write about with. a sociologist would, as expected, have another, and a psychologist, a philosopher, or neuroscientist still others.

nomenclature, however, does not interest me as much any more. whether a person who has a leading role is a mediator, an effector, a shaman or the alpha male/female, they do what they do for whatever reason they do it. the reasons seem to be very interesting, because, out of any good sampling, there are always individuals who don't fit into the systems that are defined. one rule i learned in logic is that a theory is only a theory until just one case defies it. thus you can't say "all men are like this" or "we all want these things" because no, not all men or all people or even all of any group fits a grouping. what interests me most of all is that this is a fairly simply grasped concept, but it is used only when it's desired. people tell me "all conservatives are this way" then complain that a conservative makes a broad, sweeping generalization of his/her own. i know, i know, this is an argument tactic (i am loathe to sully the word "debate" in this context), this is done because people sometimes aren't aware, or hope it won't be noticed... i know these things, but they don't have to make me happy with them.
anywho... this wasn't where i was originally headed. i saw this site about raves through kr8n's site (noticing along the way, that so many sites i go to have either slashdot or homestarrunner or both in the side nav), and it reminded me of various other sites i've been to that describe it in their own way. i thought it was rather interesting, and yet, like rave culture itself, almost fractiously set in their ways. like so many history teachers, this is the way things are. which doesn't mean it's bad or necessarily wrong... just that, things are never only what they seem to one or a few or even a lot of people (cf. my previous treatise on truth vs. Truth) well... i'm getting the wierd looks about the pink floyd music coming from my speakers, so i'm off. i leave you with this...

if there is an underlying rule system to the behavior of people... why haven't we found it, or by looking for it harder and harder, do we get farther and farther from it?

10/15/2003 >> Render

Perhaps it's one of those things like self-diagnosing mental illness. A self-observing system doesn't have any standard for objective evaluation.

Or perhaps societies evolve, in miniscule ways, far more rapidly than we think, so a description of how people behave within that society is always in flux.

Or perhaps it's accurate to say that people are capable of damned near anything, assume that if something can be done some idiot will probably do it, whether it conveniently fits analyzed behavior patterns or not.

Probably all of the above, with a heavy dose of the fact that people will come up with all kinds of internally-consistent theories when they're going for their PhD and/or tenure.

10/15/2003 >> ben

"A self-observing system doesn't have any standard for objective evaluation."

this is a point that was raised to us in school several times... and the corollary is that regarding any system changes it, along the lines of the heisenberg uncertainty principle... except, they change direction, not velocity... and... well yeah

2) with regards to sociology and trends, i could agree... but i was thinking of a more overarching, universal... like "all of our actions in front of those we view as potential reproductive mates are guided by this blah blah etc."

3) i'm inclined to lean towards this idea.

and yes, schools have some PhD candidates who are working on some of the most ridiculous projects ever (do a search, some funny stuff out there for sure)

10/15/2003 >> Casey

Dude, raves (like conservatives) are so yesterday. Its mash-up and electroclash now. Get with it, geezer.

10/16/2003 >> ben


10/16/2003 >> ben

seriously though, i think you're pretty much right, since "techno" has gone mainstream, and it is getting more accepted. i wonder if there were 70 different genres in rock in the late 50s and 60s... i know there were/are for "jazz" and "classical," they've just shortened the timeline

You must be logged in to comment.


This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Kheiligh. Make your own badge here.