wrote:
>Omar Haneef '96 ([email protected]) wrote:
>> Nemickol ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>> What you are saying makes sense to me. I see how your explanation of
>> cyberpunk fits in with the books and the term. But Nightfly seems to have a
>> different account of cyberpunk. Or are you guys not concerned that your
>> fellow cyberpunk has a different idea of what you are "about"?
>
>I'd be pretty frightened if they did. All participants here are equals
>and each has their own path.
Cultures are different than ideologies. Ideologies (or "philosophical
movements") require an explicit assent to fundamental principles, but
cultures are something you find yourself swimming in, like fish in
water. Ideological committment requires self-criticism and renewal of
committment (Some readers may remember some old threads of a year ago and
the expression "ceremonies of committment"). Ideologies cannot tolerate
much dissent (that "dissent" can be imagined indicates it is an ideology
and not a culture that is being considered). They require an explicit
uniformity and committment on a fundamental level, which, if deviated
from will be criticized and if uncorrected will lead to expulsion.
Of course we aren't concerned, Omar. Why would we be? enculturation is a
developmental process, not an intellectual one. One reason why this group
gets into a feeding frenzy over someone who tries to define cyberpunk for
us all (you remember my "sometimes .edu's are so gosh darned cute"?) is
that inevitably such manifestos exclude people who are part of the
culture, no matter how laudable the sentiments and ideals contained
therein, for the sake of defining a Movement or an Ideology.
Should I exclude someone because I don't share their taste in anime?
Should they exclude me for not sharing it? Cultures are diverse.
--
(__) Sourcerer
/(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O "I arise, a corpse already wept, and live."
\../ |OO|||O|||O|O --Maximian
|| OO|||OO||O||O
[Next appendix] | [Return to index for Appendix A8] | [Return to index for Appendix A]