2700:2025:11
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| 2700:2025:11 [2025/05/11 17:51] – Ryan Schram (admin) | 2700:2025:11 [2025/05/11 18:03] (current) – Ryan Schram (admin) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| * Not a lecture | * Not a lecture | ||
| * We can just talk about anthropology, | * We can just talk about anthropology, | ||
| - | * Anthro Society people may come also. | + | * Anthro Society people may come also |
| ===== If you “take only photographs, | ===== If you “take only photographs, | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| * Having a healthy **blood pressure** is important, so you should be screened regularly by a doctor. Oh, but if it’s too high, then the doctor’s gonna talk to you about salt, fat, and wine. Aaaaah! So stressful! | * Having a healthy **blood pressure** is important, so you should be screened regularly by a doctor. Oh, but if it’s too high, then the doctor’s gonna talk to you about salt, fat, and wine. Aaaaah! So stressful! | ||
| * It is common for a person with normal blood pressure to read high in the doctor’s office, because of **“white coat syndrome”**: | * It is common for a person with normal blood pressure to read high in the doctor’s office, because of **“white coat syndrome”**: | ||
| - | * According to [[https:// | + | * According to //[[https:// |
| **The observer effect is everywhere**, | **The observer effect is everywhere**, | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| //Credit to Pete G. He’s a really interesting physics bloke.// | //Credit to Pete G. He’s a really interesting physics bloke.// | ||
| - | The double slit sends two light waves crashing into each other, like two swells converging | + | The double slit sends two light waves crashing into each other, like two swells converging |
| The double slit experiment suggests that how we observe light changes what we see. **It’s the observer effect.** | The double slit experiment suggests that how we observe light changes what we see. **It’s the observer effect.** | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
| ===== Does consciousness cause collapse? Not for physical reality. Maybe social reality? ===== | ===== Does consciousness cause collapse? Not for physical reality. Maybe social reality? ===== | ||
| - | * Some physicists proposed that consciousness itself causes the collapse of the wave function.[^See the Wikipedia articles, https:// | + | * Some physicists proposed that consciousness itself causes the collapse of the wave function.((See the Wikipedia articles, https:// |
| * This idea suggests that the world materializes in response to a thinking mind observing it. | * This idea suggests that the world materializes in response to a thinking mind observing it. | ||
| * This idea has been proven wrong in physics, and its proponents withdrew their proposal. | * This idea has been proven wrong in physics, and its proponents withdrew their proposal. | ||
| Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
| ==== But there’s a more general point we can make here ==== | ==== But there’s a more general point we can make here ==== | ||
| - | * Everyone is an ethnographer sometimes. **All people are observers of each other**, as a part of interacting with, relating to, cooperating with each other. | + | * Everyone is an ethnographer sometimes. **All people are observers of each other** as a part of interacting with, relating to, cooperating with each other. |
| ===== Social agency looks different in the quantum realm ===== | ===== Social agency looks different in the quantum realm ===== | ||
| Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
| ===== The person is a dividual and an individual ===== | ===== The person is a dividual and an individual ===== | ||
| - | In an essay on Hindu food sharing rules, Marriott (1976) writes: | + | In an essay on Hindu food sharing rules, |
| > [T]he pervasive indigenous assumptions of any society, such as Indian notions of the identity of actor and action and of the divisibility of the person, provide bases on which an anthropologist may construct his models of cultural behavior in that society. (Marriott 1976, 109) | > [T]he pervasive indigenous assumptions of any society, such as Indian notions of the identity of actor and action and of the divisibility of the person, provide bases on which an anthropologist may construct his models of cultural behavior in that society. (Marriott 1976, 109) | ||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
| > To exist, dividual persons absorb heterogenous material influences (Marriott 1976, 111) | > To exist, dividual persons absorb heterogenous material influences (Marriott 1976, 111) | ||
| - | In her book, The Gender of the Gift (1988), Strathern writes: | + | In her book, //The Gender of the Gift// (1988), Strathern writes: |
| > [F]or contextualizing Melanesians’ views we shall require a vocabulary that will allow us to talk about sociality in the singular as well as the plural. Far from being regarded as unique entities, Melanesian persons are as dividually as they are individually conceived. They contain a generalized sociality within. Indeed, persons are frequently constructed as the plural and composite site of the relationships that produced them. The singular person can be imagined as a social microcosm. (Strathern 1988, 13) | > [F]or contextualizing Melanesians’ views we shall require a vocabulary that will allow us to talk about sociality in the singular as well as the plural. Far from being regarded as unique entities, Melanesian persons are as dividually as they are individually conceived. They contain a generalized sociality within. Indeed, persons are frequently constructed as the plural and composite site of the relationships that produced them. The singular person can be imagined as a social microcosm. (Strathern 1988, 13) | ||
| Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
| ===== “Melanesians” are “dividuals” and “individuals”?? | ===== “Melanesians” are “dividuals” and “individuals”?? | ||
| - | ===== Everybody’s talking about personhood | + | ==== Everybody’s talking about personhood ==== |
| Strathern is talking about **personhood**. If you think about it, you have probably already encountered the complexity of this idea. | Strathern is talking about **personhood**. If you think about it, you have probably already encountered the complexity of this idea. | ||
| Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
| * Consider why, for instance, **prisoners at Bomana do not want their relatives to visit too often**, because they will see them face to face. Why? | * Consider why, for instance, **prisoners at Bomana do not want their relatives to visit too often**, because they will see them face to face. Why? | ||
| * Consider what it means **not to “find a name” for one’s sickness** and suffering. Consider what it means to “go back to the village” when the hospital fails to diagnose, let alone cure, you. | * Consider what it means **not to “find a name” for one’s sickness** and suffering. Consider what it means to “go back to the village” when the hospital fails to diagnose, let alone cure, you. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== AI acknowledgement ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Several slides were generated by the a generative AI tool based on an original text, structuring the main points with second-level headings and bullet points. | ||
| ===== References and further reading ===== | ===== References and further reading ===== | ||
2700/2025/11.1747011078.txt.gz · Last modified: 2025/05/11 17:51 by Ryan Schram (admin)