culture

In my last paper I spoke of the collective I-function, and how culture is one of the most enduring examples of the collective I-function. This paper is also about the collective I-function, and how it can go horribly wrong. My thoughts are inspired by the discussions we had in class about color, colorblindness, wavelength and perception, and also by a very recent BBC documentary called Welcome to Lagos.
    Africans, including myself complain bitterly about the way Africa is portrayed in Western Media. Usually, only stories of poverty war and disease are shown. It is so bad that when I am walking on the streets of America and I tell someone I’m African, they are shocked that I “can speak English so well.” It’s ridiculous for two main reasons.

Preface

    Love is one of the most popular topics discussed among different age groups and across different cultures. Its entrancing and addictive nature has encouraged scientists to explore the neurological basis of this emotional phenomenon. However, this paper questions the perspective that love arises from a set pattern of activity in a number of designated neural structures. It instead proposes that the definitions of love set in place by different cultures influence and give rise to unique patterns of neural activity that lead to the experience of love. Thus, love is unique to the individual and does not arise from a generalized pattern of neural activity.

Culture shaping our perception

            Culture can shape our view of the world. It sounds way to obvious to even be an argument. Many studies have shown that people from different cultures see and perceive things differently and that is probably due to how their culture shaped the way they view the world. While I agree with this idea, I think people often overlook how culture can be different for each individual and therefore affected by it differently. From these previous studies, people have over-generalized the findings to large sum of population under such broadly labeled culture and based on my personal experience, I would like to argue how we should not just label people into culture in terms we often do.

If a course syllabus is a menu for a classroom experience, then here is my summary of the House of Wits Course 2010.  Each dish is a culinary representation of the James family member it is matched with opposite.  Anyone with allergies to pragmatism or relativism should avoid the preparations of William James.  They will result in a strong reaction.  They are arranged in reverse chronological order as the course primarily was.  Note how all the dishes work together... do they form a coherent meal?  Are their clashes in flavor?  Repetition?  All this is designed to bring out the family dynamics of the James.  Enjoy the meal!!!  And feel free to comment on your favorite dishes and personalities. 

Discussion Paper – Imaging and Consciousness

            Pick up a newspaper, and you will discover an amazing thing: we are living in the future. The for-real future of jet-packs, ray-guns, and mind reading. Our revolutionary imaging technology can determine what memories you are accessing, what shapes you are seeing, the degree to which a decade of happy hour has smoothed your prefrontal cortex, and whether or not you associate the face of John Edwards with a particularly debauched collection of short stories. So it would seem, anyway.

What to do with William James?  His writings on psychology formed the primary textbook for that discipline.  The school of philosophy he developed, pragmatism appeals to philosophers and scientists alike.  Jacques Barzun identifies him as an American hero.  So it would seem that the works of William James have been assimilated into American culture and intellectual life.  If this is true, then what is the point of reading his original writings?  Or why should one use “The Writings of William James: A Comprehensive