registerfasterusing
These lil nigga funny
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2024
- Posts
- 11,052
- Reputation
- 15,188
Cultures are simulacra. The reality is the land in which the culture developed. The culture develops in response to the land, distorting its objectivity into a subjective mode of thought and practice. A culture that is practiced within the boundaries of the land in which it was developed exists in the 1st or 2nd stage of simulacra. A culture that is practiced outside of the boundaries of the land in which it was developed exists in the 3rd or 4th stage of simulacra. It is in the latter stages that the traditions and practices of the migrating culture are lost, absorbed, or adapted into culture of the land it migrated to.
Farming developed in fertile regions. Whereas hunter-gatherers and nomads existed in open terrains, like plains or deserts.
Cultures seek to sustain themselves even through migration. An example is when Oghuz Turkic nomads arrived in the Caucasus. A significant proportion of these nomads chose to settle in the Mughan plain and Kura-Araxes lowlands. These regions, the former in particular, are comparable to the geographical conditions of the Eurasian steppe, the lands in which the Turkic nomads originated.
Cultures perhaps seek not to sustain themselves as a means of evolutionary survival, but rather of the establishment of permanence: a return to the primal, pre-conscious, Real, state of absence. This is why the masses seek not change but stability; and why the implosion of change in capitalist society encourages its internal collapse. A culture not adapting is an attempt to resist change, an attempt to return to the impossibility of absolute permanence, of primal absence. Sometimes, the lands are entirely separated from the culture and serve only as the place in which the subjection is assigned to (e.g. Azerbaijan and Greater Azerbaijan, although there is some merit to it, it’s more nuanced).
For example, Azeris in the Caucasus (transhumance; summer settlements in the highlands, winter settlements in the lowlands). This only ended when it was forced to stop by the Soviets.
Evidence: According to the 1897 census, the Elizavetpol uezd of the Russian Empire, with its capital at Ganja in the Dashkasan plain of the Kura-Araxes lowland, was composed of 63.87% native Tatar (Azerbaijani) speakers. In the Baku Governorate, much of which comprised the Kura-Araxes lowlands and the northern portion of the Mughan plain, 58.68% of the population were native Tatar speakers. In the Javad uezd of the Baku Governorate, essentially all of which existed within the Mughan plain, the population consisted of 93.35% native Tatar speakers.
There are some cultures, however, that resist sustenance. These are not the ones that incorporate loss and death into themselves, as a means of sustaining the culture (like the Armenian culture with the genocide. Or even a dead culture like the Aztecs that valued human sacrifice. For, these cultures continue to exist taxonomically and chronologically. They are built into a Western historiographical narrative. They continue to exist, whether geopolitico-materially like the Armenian culture, historico-materially like the Assyrian or Kurdish cultures, or hauntologically like the Aztec culture; as the Aztec culture influenced contemporary Mexican culture. All of these cultures exist either as a warning to death, like the former(s), or as death itself, like the latter. Perhaps difficult to necessarily categorize, but still conceptually existent, whether through subjective or objective means). It is these cultures that may sustain themselves without geographical continuity, as they are based conceptually upon abstractions like absence or death. Whereas, a geographical culture is based upon the physical presence of the land in which it exists materially; its identity is conceived through its embrace of the object, but is limited to the subjections constructed in relation to the material. Though, this does not mean the culture is defined by presence, it is in fact the opposite: the culture exists to fill the void of the symbolic non-value of the material land, the non-meaning of the object.
A culture that entirely resists sustenance is one that, to academic knowledge, does not exist, at least for the moment. It is one that vanishes completely. Academia cannot bear the thought of any culture that values not existence or its preservation. Therefore, these cultures are labeled as I describe them now, as not-discovered; not-yet-discovered. The anthropologists will, by all means, make an attempt to discover these ‘lost’ cultures and place them within a historiographical narrative, even if, by reality, they exist outside of such a codified arrangement. In such an instance, the ‘lost’ culture is orgiastically subsumed into an absolutely non-referential stage of simulacra (equivalent to the third or fourth stage), existent within a simulatory historiography. Historiography itself is a simulation to begin with, no different from sociological or anthropological studies; they are relative to the cultural narratives in which they exist. Since ‘lost’ cultures do not possess a cultural narrative, one is organized in place of its absence.
As Claude Lévi-Strauss stated, myth is reality. And reality ‘is’ myth.
Humans are born prematurely and lack innate instincts, compensating for this with the establishment of the symbolic order, which is language and culture. This view solves the evolutionary puzzle of direct continuity by highlighting an irreducible gap between animal and human
@MogsGymMaxx @Jason Voorhees @chicolate131 @girthygirt @Primalsplit
Farming developed in fertile regions. Whereas hunter-gatherers and nomads existed in open terrains, like plains or deserts.
Cultures seek to sustain themselves even through migration. An example is when Oghuz Turkic nomads arrived in the Caucasus. A significant proportion of these nomads chose to settle in the Mughan plain and Kura-Araxes lowlands. These regions, the former in particular, are comparable to the geographical conditions of the Eurasian steppe, the lands in which the Turkic nomads originated.
Cultures perhaps seek not to sustain themselves as a means of evolutionary survival, but rather of the establishment of permanence: a return to the primal, pre-conscious, Real, state of absence. This is why the masses seek not change but stability; and why the implosion of change in capitalist society encourages its internal collapse. A culture not adapting is an attempt to resist change, an attempt to return to the impossibility of absolute permanence, of primal absence. Sometimes, the lands are entirely separated from the culture and serve only as the place in which the subjection is assigned to (e.g. Azerbaijan and Greater Azerbaijan, although there is some merit to it, it’s more nuanced).
For example, Azeris in the Caucasus (transhumance; summer settlements in the highlands, winter settlements in the lowlands). This only ended when it was forced to stop by the Soviets.
Evidence: According to the 1897 census, the Elizavetpol uezd of the Russian Empire, with its capital at Ganja in the Dashkasan plain of the Kura-Araxes lowland, was composed of 63.87% native Tatar (Azerbaijani) speakers. In the Baku Governorate, much of which comprised the Kura-Araxes lowlands and the northern portion of the Mughan plain, 58.68% of the population were native Tatar speakers. In the Javad uezd of the Baku Governorate, essentially all of which existed within the Mughan plain, the population consisted of 93.35% native Tatar speakers.
There are some cultures, however, that resist sustenance. These are not the ones that incorporate loss and death into themselves, as a means of sustaining the culture (like the Armenian culture with the genocide. Or even a dead culture like the Aztecs that valued human sacrifice. For, these cultures continue to exist taxonomically and chronologically. They are built into a Western historiographical narrative. They continue to exist, whether geopolitico-materially like the Armenian culture, historico-materially like the Assyrian or Kurdish cultures, or hauntologically like the Aztec culture; as the Aztec culture influenced contemporary Mexican culture. All of these cultures exist either as a warning to death, like the former(s), or as death itself, like the latter. Perhaps difficult to necessarily categorize, but still conceptually existent, whether through subjective or objective means). It is these cultures that may sustain themselves without geographical continuity, as they are based conceptually upon abstractions like absence or death. Whereas, a geographical culture is based upon the physical presence of the land in which it exists materially; its identity is conceived through its embrace of the object, but is limited to the subjections constructed in relation to the material. Though, this does not mean the culture is defined by presence, it is in fact the opposite: the culture exists to fill the void of the symbolic non-value of the material land, the non-meaning of the object.
A culture that entirely resists sustenance is one that, to academic knowledge, does not exist, at least for the moment. It is one that vanishes completely. Academia cannot bear the thought of any culture that values not existence or its preservation. Therefore, these cultures are labeled as I describe them now, as not-discovered; not-yet-discovered. The anthropologists will, by all means, make an attempt to discover these ‘lost’ cultures and place them within a historiographical narrative, even if, by reality, they exist outside of such a codified arrangement. In such an instance, the ‘lost’ culture is orgiastically subsumed into an absolutely non-referential stage of simulacra (equivalent to the third or fourth stage), existent within a simulatory historiography. Historiography itself is a simulation to begin with, no different from sociological or anthropological studies; they are relative to the cultural narratives in which they exist. Since ‘lost’ cultures do not possess a cultural narrative, one is organized in place of its absence.
As Claude Lévi-Strauss stated, myth is reality. And reality ‘is’ myth.
Humans are born prematurely and lack innate instincts, compensating for this with the establishment of the symbolic order, which is language and culture. This view solves the evolutionary puzzle of direct continuity by highlighting an irreducible gap between animal and human
@MogsGymMaxx @Jason Voorhees @chicolate131 @girthygirt @Primalsplit
