High Culture? WTF? Part One

Introduction

Let’s dive right in and start off with an obvious question and a straightforward answer. What is meant by High Culture?

High Culture = high level problem-solving and significant innovation. Both of which require the attributes of wisdom.

Which brings us to our next question.

What is meant by the phrase high level problem-solving?

Well, certainly one answer would be that a high level problem is a problem people start revolutions about. That’d be one answer.

But, another answer would be simply, a problem that is very important to a social institution, but also resistant to solution.

Ok. So far, so good. But, so what? What’s this got to do with anything? And in what way is this relevant and useful to us?

The Irreducibles

Readers of this Journal will be familiar with the idea of what I refer to as The Irreducibles. The Irreducibles have to do with things beyond which it is impossible for human beings to go, at least so far. In short, they are things that are unavoidable.

No doubt, many of you are familiar with the idea of Culture: By Design or Default. Meaning, culture (observable and identifiable patterns of verbal and non-verbal behavior) is not so much something we do, it is something that happens to us. So, the more we know about it the better. Or so one would think.

And, speaking of thinking, the same goes for that. It’s not so much something we do as it is something that happens to us.*

*Though we do it better if we know how to think. And to do that you need to at least know something about how we think. That way you're in a better position to avoid the negative consequences of bad thinking. Given the obviousness of this one is inclined to raise curious doubts about educators who deliberately replace education with indoctrination by replacing Critical Thinking with Critical Theory.

Also, though culture, like thinking, is something that happens to us, it is also something we do. This is what is meant by our notion here at PRC that the meaning of life is your response to it.

Of course, it’s relevance to this entry is that if Culture = observable and identifiable patterns of verbal and non-verbal behavior, it also includes non-observable, inaccessible verbal and non-verbal behavior, which is what thinking amounts to.

Hard to imagine any Culture without an element of thought.

Though it isn’t at all hard to imagine a Culture where there’s no real standard of thought, or there is, but those standards are dangerously low. And any cultural area, or country, with either no intellectual or moral standards, or a handful that are low, meaning, drastically oversimplified, is by definition - Barbaric.

Today that would be the United States of America, and not just the United States. The hostile elite who control that country right now, and not just that country, hate with an open, unapologetic, and deadly savagery, the life of the mind and the world of ideas.

The elite didn’t always hate the life of the mind, nor fail to see its value, especially in relation to problem-solving and innovation.

But they do now, because they're a different elite. Everything this elite controls has become uncontrolable. It's as if destruction is their only genuine interest. Destruction of, well, everything.

The reason, as we shall see, is that they abandoned High Culture in their teaching-learning institutions. The result is the culture they have now - a sick, crazy and stupid hi-tech barbarism run by a hive of materialistic narcissists who live out of The Dark Triad.

We'll return to this later. The point for us to keep in mind now is that Culture is one of the Irreducibles. So, what is true of Culture is true of all the Irreducibles, they can’t be avoided. That means that the Irreducibles are, in a sense, the source of our problems.

So, just to be clear, the Irreduciles are not the cause of our problems, we are, but they are their source. The Irreducibles are where one should begin if they hope to solve those problems.

And, as anyone over the age of three knows, or should know, problems are another thing human beings can’t avoid.*

*Unfortunately, people seem to do as much as they can to avoid their problems. Preferring instead a pseudo-problem considered to be of the utmost importance and so is given the highest priority. In Action Learning this tendency is known by the expression The urgent drives out the important. Not surprisingly, they turn out to be problems that are never solved. Either the problem-solvers in question say that the problems are unsolvable, or are not problems at all. The result is Cultural Impoverishment and Societal Collapse. For evidence of this - just look around.

Why? Because no one ever gets anything right. Of course, that statement has to be qualified. What it means is that absolute perfection is beyond our ability (as is perfect adaptation). That’s not to say that individuals or groups aren’t capable of exhibiting or demonstrating a high level of competence (see our discussion of value and competence in CRT? WTF?). Of course they are.

We wouldn’t have gotten very far if we weren’t capable of reaching a certain level of competence in things like, oh, I don’t know, ah, Survival!. Human beings may have started off in Africa*, they did not continue to develop there. Obviously!

*Fortunately, the sentimental Out of Africa myth has been debunked. But you get the idea.

Survival and development have to do with adaptation. We have to develop ways or methods of adaptation or we won’t survive.

It’s true of a company in the short-term and a species in the long-term and vice versa. It’s not something that’s open to question.

Of course, whether or not an individual or group wants to survive is always open to question. People are deciding that they shouldn’t survive, or that their group shouldn’t survive (and deciding on behalf of the group), or that another group shouldn’t survive, all of the time, especially now. Just look around.

So, if you want to survive as an individual or group you’re going to come up against problems, obstacles, hindrances to that survival. Especially if you want to do more than just survive.

Meaning, especially if you want to enhance the quality of life beyond mere survival. In that case, you’re most definitely going to have to become competent at problem-solving. And to do that at all well you’re going to have to have your wits about you.

Note: Of course, as we shall see later in this entry, you'll need a lot more than your wits. If you're interested in high-level problem-solving and significant innovation (beyond technology) then you'll need to be aligned with a power center. When power centers abandon High Culture the culture can not survive. But then, neither can the power center. In a way, this is both the subject and justification of not just this entry, or of this entire culture journal, but of PRC itself.

That way you’ll be better able to identify the problem you’re trying to solve. But, to do that at all well, you’re going to have to have some idea of who you are. Hard as that might be at times. Otherwise, without that self-awareness, you'll proceed blindly.

Now, in one very real sense, we're always plagued by some blind spot in the sense that, since it's impossible to know it all, you never really know what you're doing until you've done it. That's why, as I've said here before, If anxiety is the result of not knowing how to act, our confidence lies in a cheerful exploration of the unknown. But, we're talking about something else here.

We're talking about refusing to know the knowable out of fear.

I

Socrates once said that believing you possess a virtue, quality or skill that you in fact do not possess, is an illness akin to insanity.

Lots of that going on today, everywhere. And it is a problem. One of the things PRC offers to help us solve this - or any - institutional problem is the following very useful formula:

Situation - People - Problem - Tools

It’s very important at this point to keep in mind that when dealing with, or responding to, anything, let alone the above formula in relation to the problem-solving process, there are no theoretical limits, only pragmatic limits. In other words, though the theoretical process could go on indefinitely, we have to act.

We’ve got to get on with it. We have to act. And that action is, to take a word from the theater, a performance. Ideally, we perform instinctively. We simply act. We don’t inhibit our actions with a lot of thought. However, instincts can only take us so far. And, in fact, not infrequently, they can work against us. So, those instincts and actions need to have an element of mind to them. If not, our actions are mindless or thoughtless and therefore, counterproductive. Or, as Dante put it, intellect and instinct balanced equally. As long as we’re using words from the theater the word that best corresponds with performance is directions.

And now we’re back to our Irreducibles. Because one of those irreducibles is Human Behavior, which can be seen as a general category that subsumes two other categories. One aspect or category is Culture, the other is Social Institutions. Or, Directions (Culture) and Performance (Social Institutions).

At the most basic level directions come in the form of language which functions by coordinating behavior, and at the next level, by controlling the behavior of those who have been prepared beforehand to be so directed. That preparation beforehand is what we call Education. At this level, explanation functions by giving sets of directions for behavioral performance. If we get whatever we’re learning wrong we can start again and work until we get it right. Right in this case simply meaning whatever the culture considers to be the appropriate performance at that time.

Note: This is not to say that what the culture considers appropriate is also adaptive. But further discussion of this will have to wait til later. As we shall see, this discussion is highly relevant.

The good news is, we can always start again. And, in a sense, we always are starting again. Since we can not begin at the beginning of any learning process, once we have passed the point in infantile development at which learning begins, whatever that point may be, learning behavior is best understood as relearning behavior. In any event, the reason why this is worth knowing is because it has everything to do with solving problems that are important to us and our institutions, but are often hard to solve.

In fact, the more important the problem, the harder it is to solve, the more significant the innovative solution will be. And now we’re back to the subject of today’s entry - High Culture.

But before continuing it will be helpful to keep some things in mind for what has been discussed so far and for what follows.

The meaning of life is your response to it, is a very important and oft repeated saying here at PRC. Though at times it serves as a reminder to myself, even an admonition, and for a reason.

First, because without response there is no life, at least not for long. Second, our response to anything, at any given moment, is what life means to us. Thirdly, as we shall see later, meanings, like conventions, beliefs, etc. can change, and not infrequently for the better. Though admittedly easier said than done.

Be that as it may, the point for now, however, is that response has to do with mental activity. Whether the response in question is one of impulse or reflection, thoughtlessness or thoughtfulness.

From this perspective High Culture is the highest level of thoughtful response known to mankind (I still use the word).

That’s another way of saying it’s the most biologically adaptive mode of response yet devised by human beings. It’s elimination poses a great threat to our survival. The source of that threat today comes mainly, but not exclusively, from that unmitigated disaster, that international disgrace and global laughing stock, that is the United States of America, and not just the USA.

WTF? Indeed!

But, whatever our response - to anything - all mental activity involves four things I would like the reader to keep in mind.

Perception - Cognition - Structure - Prediction

When responding we perceive something, we cognize by ascribing attributes to that something, we structure our responses to include that something and we predict how we will respond to that something and vice versa as the case may be.

This is what we’ll refer to as Orientative Behavior. This is how we orient ourselves to the world, which of course includes us.

And just as learning behavior is relearning behavior, so too is orientative behavior best seen as reorientative behavior.

Regarding this entry, it's essential for us to know that this kind of thinking, this kind of situational, behavioral and historical awareness, didn't come out of nowhere. It took centuries to arrive at this position. A position involving human activities that we are subsuming here under the term High Culture. So, the important point to keep in mind is that this mode of response, again the most biologically adaptive mode of repsonse yet devised by human beings, is now being actively, aggressively attacked, from both the top and bottom, and that this attack is turning human beings into a biologically maladaptive species that shouldn't laugh at the dinosaurs for getting themselves extinct. Especially since dinosaurs lasted a lot longer than human beings have so far.

Hence, the relevance, usefulness and justification for this entry.

II

The Value of High Culture

The purpose and importance of High Culture is to be sensitive to situational change, or to the constancy of situational change. And that means being sensitive to the constancy of culture crises, which at any time might range from mild to severe. I have yet to encounter a single case in a single social institution in any culture's history that I'm aware of where this doesn't apply. This is to emphasize the relevance and usefulness of High Culture itself.

How It Works

Information flows to High Culture, where it’s applied to the cultural situation or critical aspects of it. High Culture then perceives the disparities in three basic ways:

1. Within and between information

2. The current ways of structuring that information

3. The general cultural situation

High Culture subjects explanations to a continuous and never-ending process of intellectual (verbal) and artistic (nonverbal) feedback and correction.

This is why as social institutions - when operating as power centers - have developed they’ve become interested in the arts.

For example, the Church in the Middle Ages, the Government in the 18th century and the Corporation starting in the 19th century.

The Age of Cultural Impoverishment and Explanatory Collapse

What we’ve been discussing up until now makes it apparent where the values of wisdom addressed in What Matters Now?

have their origin and why. All high culture and high power centers are alike characterized by psychic insulation and social protection, as can often be seen by the office of a corporation president. The same goes for the quiet, secluded laboratory of the scientist, the study of the philosopher, and the library or museums and theaters and dark concern halls in which the arts are presented and performed. The processing and innovation of directions require problem exposure and solution postponement, and these in turn require situations in which decisions can be postponed until theoretical manipulation is exhausted and information is processed, sifted, and integrated into theory.

High corporate policy making, the construction of scientific theory, and the listening to music composed at and for the high cultural level (Beethoven’s Late Quartets, Wagner’s Operas) all involve elaborate techniques for prolonging a behavioral sequence, for postponing decision, for theoretical conclusion, and for the sense of psychological closure. Consider, for example, the amusement one feels at those who need to peek at the end of a long novel to see how it turns out, or who depend on Cliff Notes.

Note: That our social institutions no longer use these techniques is why they have become a maladaptive force that threatens the survival of, not only those under their control, but of those doing the controlling as well. In short, our social institutions, which are adaptational mechanisms, have become a threat to human survival. Not that the elite are interested in that. Which, in a sense, is the real point of this entry, ie; that those now in power shouldnt be.

They involve the postponement of gratification and the ability, not only to sustain tension but to seek it out. In other words, it involves the ability of the individual to impose upon themselves extreme intellectual, psychological and emotional pressure.

So? Again, what’s the relevance and usefulness of this to us?

Since the complexity of modern society, the incoherence of the current culture crisis, and the increasing domination of corporations, governments, big tech and the media, over every aspect of our lives, all require far more people with the values of High Culture (the attributes of wisdom, problem exposure and solution postponement, etc) than universities are currently producing, or are interested in producing, or are even aware of the absolute necessity of producing such people in the first place, the question now arises as to whether or not it can be done.

Can we teach and learn the attributes of wisdom or not? I believe that the answer to this question is, Yes, it can be done.

But to answer that question we’ll have to return to the beginning and start over again. Happily for us, we can always start again. Only this time with a better idea of what we’re talking about.

III

If High Culture = high level problem-solving and significant innovation, and both require the attributes of wisdom, in what way is it relevant and useful for us today?

Naturally, the position of PRC is that what we’re referring to here as High Culture will always be relevant and useful to us. Why?

Because, to repeat, perfect adaptation is beyond our ability.

That being the case, the only reasonable solution is a dedication to continuous learning, change and growth. But, obviously, this is easier said than done. Though, if it is to be done, it first has to be said. After that, a suggestion has to be made as to what can be done. That’s why the above formula of situation - people - problem - tools has been so important to PRC and why I invite my readers to consider and test it. In fact, let's use our formula now in the simplest way and develop it later.

What is the situation?

Our situation, in the most general sense, is the contemporary world and, more specifically, our place in it.

Who are the people involved?

Right now, strictly speaking, it’s simply you and I. Specifically, PRC, it’s partners and readers.

What is the problem?

It’s our attempt to understand the problem-solving process itself in relation to the contemporary world and its relevance to us.

Specifically, our task is to identify the problem, or problems and to offer a solution that we think will work, at least for now.

What tools are we using?

Again, the most general answer is, the tools of PRC. The tools of High Culture, Problem-Solving, The Attributes of Wisdom, and, of course, The Irreducibles and Social Management.

Specifically, we want to direct attention to these tools and suggest how they might be useful for identifying and solving problems in general and those of specific situations. Obviously, regarding the above questions, anyone can both formulate and answer them in any way that they consider to be appropriate and useful to them.

IV

PRC Reader: Ok. Again, so far, so good. But, so what? We have yet to identify a problem, even in general terms. So, could we at least start with that and work our way on our own to something more concrete as it relates to us and our organization?

PRC: Sure. Let’s identify the problem by asking a question.

What is the role of social institutions in today’s culture crisis?

PRC Reader: Why do you say culture crisis? I’m not saying there isn’t one. I’m just asking how you came to identify it.

PRC: Well, in the first place, people in general and Sociologists and other academics in particular, often talk about cultural values as a system. But this in itself is a problem because it’s extremely misleading. Why? Because the values of any society or culture or individual have originated at different times and in response to different situations. A society, culture, or individual is a loose package of diversities, in other words, an incoherence, not a structured system of compatible entities where all parts fit.

Which means, if left to itself, that diversity is hardly a strength.

Now, whether or not such a package is seen as coherent is, of course, a consequence of the personality traits and cultural situation of the perceiver. But, as situations change, a perceived coherence can metamorphose into the perception of an incoherence (something that happens in all kinds of ways in all kinds of relationships all of the time). The point is, such a metamorphosis produces in the perceiver a sense of cultural crisis. The perception of a social incoherence by a sufficient number of individuals means that the society is in a condition of cultural crisis. And that’s the condition we’re in today.

PRC Reader: Ok. That’s better. But, though it is an interesting answer, it isn’t a full answer. Could you be more specific?

PRC: Certainly. Let’s return to our question above about the role of our social institutions in today’s culture crisis. To simplify a complex matter let’s focus on our economic institutions, our government institutions and our teaching-learning institutions. More specifically, Corporations, Government and the University.

PRC Reader: Great! What about them?

PRC: The first thing to note is that a social institution is an adaptational mechanism.

The second thing is that, as an adaptational mechanism, that social institution may or may not have survival value.

The third thing is, what keeps a species going at one stage in its history may very well destroy it at another stage.

Fourth, this invites the question regarding the survival value of our social institutions today. Specifically the Corporation, Government and University.

PRC Reader: Ok. That’s definitely a fuller answer. But I’m sure there’s more to it than that, or no?

PRC: Of course. There’s a lot more. And, though we’ll never get to the bottom of it all, we have to at least respond as best we can. If not, we’ll be working against ourselves until we won’t be able to respond at all. In fact, as a species we’re nearly there now. But, since at PRC we’re in to win we’ll continue offering a solution.

Whether anyone considers whatever solution or solutions we happen to offer to be appropriate to them is another matter.

V

A social institution is inseparable from social management.

Why? Because social management has to do with social interaction and a social institution without social interaction is as inconceivable as social interaction without explanation. By social management is meant the channeling of response through time.

Social Management = the channeling of response through time.

Now, a social institution might function for some time in spite of incompetent and inadequate social management. Though, it has to be said, that the more incompetent and inadequate, the more dysfunctional and the more dysfunctional the more maladaptive and the more maladaptive the greater the chances of extinction.

Or, in the case of a company going out of business, or of a country muddling along while scraping the very bottom, or families that indulge in scapegoating with full parental approval.

They all might last for a while, but they don't work very well. Which is why being a part of them is not a happy exerpience.

Anyway, you get the idea. And, by the way, the difference here between incompetent and inadequate simply means that the social management may be very competent, but inadequate to the demands put upon the social institution, demands that even the most competent social management can not control. The demands outweigh the competence, rendering it inadequate.

For example, a social institution could malfunction during a period of relative cultural stability. So the problem to solve would be to cultivate more individuals who are already culturally aware of the attributes of wisdom, but not yet competent in them.

By becoming competent in those attributes they can apply them to the problems they are facing and solve those problems before they become a full blown crisis or crises. In other words, the problem of cultivation is a qualitative problem.

Over the course of the 19th century as a result of The Industrial Revolution, but especially as a result of The Population Explosion and corresponding Communications Revolution this qualitative problem became a quantitative problem, the likes of which we have never seen - ever. The result was Cultural Impoverishment.

The solution to this problem is the very subject of this entry.

The problem of cultural impoverishment, first noticeable in the 19th century and practically unsolvable by the second half of the 20th century, is what led us to the crises we are now facing.

But, to understand this, and before we get in for more than we can handle, we’re going to have to back up a bit and start again.

So, that’s what we’ll do in section VI of Part Two.

Until then!