The second rave-goer is a text written by Edward Stewart and Milton Bennett, American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (1991). This text describes a number of differences between various cultures, and in particular describes the differences between languages. For example, English maintains a structured relationship between subjects and objects while also being fairly action oriented whereas Chinese maintains a less polarized, more relational linguistic bent between subjects and objects, focusing on the continuum between polar opposites rather than on the ends of the spectrum. Another way Stewart and Bennett describe the difference is that English may be more digital and Chinese more analog. An example, dear Watson? Let us take family relationships and some event X that happens in the family. If one is raised using a language with very specific, hierarchical language around family dynamics and depending on context and formality the use of language changes, then the event within the family will be described using those same terms. However, if translated, let’s say, into English much of those formal, linguistic, relationship-specific words could easily be lost, and thus the description and full appreciation of the *experience* of the event changes.

In comes the third drunkard, careening toward the other two. This drunkard is that of the research method called phenomenology, and in particular the difference between classical phenomenology and what is at times called hermeneutic phenomenology. In classical phenomenology (or p-nom for short in this post), a reseacher may bracket his or her preconceptions, set aside these biases, and access the event at hand in a rather objective way. In hermeneutic p-nom there is a continual assumption that culture (and personal experience / bias) will always get in the way. Thus, according to hermeneutic p-nom there is no direct access of the experience, only direct access of one’s own experience of the experience, as experienced through one’s own cultural and personal lenses as it were.

KA-POW!! Stumbling, reeling, and a general sense of dishevelment and dizziness fill the air.

Ok, so what does this mean? Well, if one were to take a universalist perspective, then there does exist phenomena that occur at a ground of being level, that everyone may access. If one speaks English, then that experience is likely going to be described in polarized, action-oriented language that is not especially descriptive, and if one falls within the classical p-nom camp then one could, with some meditation and concentrated effort, set aside one’s biases and “get at” the real p-nom that occurred. HOWEVER, note that the permutation above is only one of many, many combinations. If one were relativist, then one would likely also be a hermeneutic p-nom advocate, and thus would also realize the complications of language to describe any event as a more descriptive language would give great, specific detail while another may focus more on the relationship of the event to some other event. If one were a evolutionist/developmentalist, then the event (or phenomenon) could be understood within a progressive perspective, noting that different descriptions of the event would necessarily point toward the different developmental levels of the individual (and her/his culture, language, etc.). An example here might be the difference between a 4 year-old’s description of a lunar eclipse and a 45 year-old’s description. But wait, what if they are from different cultures and speak different languages? Ah, then once again complexities arise and we might not be dealing with just a cognitively-based developmental difference.

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan, why do you go on? What is the purpose? Well, that is the point. The reeling that is. The point is to acknowledge that the drunken rave-goers have collided, and that at some point a stance must be taken in order to regain balance (at least momentarily until we can start dancing again). I am searching for my balance, are you?

You may recall, back in January 2007 (was it really that long ago?) - I wrote a post about my sister’s fiancé’s short film “For All the Marbles”. Well, he’s now co-written a screenplay for a feature film which he will co-produce and direct. They’ve started quite a phenomenon with their means of raising the money to get the film made - they’re making the film on pocket change!

People from all over are donating small sums (and some not so small sums) to help get this film made. It all started with a jar, and some change out of someone’s pocket, and it’s become much more.

Anyone who donates $100 or more also gets a “Funded by” credit on the film.

You can learn more at their blog Pocketchange Film, or their Facebook group I’m Making a Feature Film with Pocket Change.

Well, this really has nothing to do with what we do here, but I want to get this out to as wide an audience as possible…

My sister’s fiance, Kris Booth, is a film maker. He’s entered a contest to get on an upcoming television show:

On the Lot is the groundbreaking new show brought to you by reality show mastermind, Mark Burnett, and legendary producer and director, Steven Spielberg. Over the season, the 16 filmmakers will produce short films in every genre every week and the viewers will vote on who gets eliminated. The winning filmmaker will take home a $1 Million development deal!

So, please head over and watch his short film - For All the Marbles - it’s really quite good. I hope you’ll enjoy it, while helping Kris at the same time!

Thanks!!!