Fil Albuquerque wrote:
why are people to compartmentalize everything instead of building conceptual bridges between what obviously is similar upon a clever more insightful look on it ?
Similar functions should be analysed for what they are, and not for the names that we give them...no wonder people this days get lost in formal concept, in the computer age people don´t know what to make of it...information and knowledge are two different things just as meaning and discourse are.
i agree with you, for the most part. People will almost always have more in common than they do otherwise. The differences between us are often superficial. When i said:
You can think on a donkey, a cart, or in a car, and even on on a car pulled by a donkey as a cart; but in each situation the meaning of things will appear quite differently.
Instead of "will", i probably should have said "may" or "are likely to". The problem, as it seems to me, is that meaning, like our differences, is often superficial. It is often derived from the things that seem most salient for decision making, and differences are good indicators that such a decision is incipient. However, negligible cultural distinctions may actually be, they often appear pregnant with dynamic possibilities; familiarity with otherwise insignificant differences heralds social change. Sometimes, minor differences, like those of economic status, are crucial to how events will play out, both for oneself and for loved ones. That emotional investment, either in the status quo or in the possibility of a change, has a major effect upon how we perceive the meaning of events.
But reasonable and/or more experienced people can extend their intellectual grasp beyond the narrow confines of their current social role and broaden their sense of the meaning of things.