Sells,

Not so.

Although, the Greek citizen saw their democracy in terms of the self, within the commununity, Western society, even in ancient its classical roots, would not have the self in relation to epsitemology or ontology, as you state.

Greek cum Western thought is reductionist and societies are broken down into categories and sometimes categorised into taxonomies.

The German (?) gestalt is about the closest thing I can think of in a five minute post, that is clos to idea of interralatedness being as important that the attributes themselves. (relationships in communion)

Taoism (as note in my comments to relda) has the the One in pursuit of T'e withdrawn from the self incorporated, as a part of a whole, which greater than its parts, as in communion. Here, knowledge and wisdom are dialectical.

Bugsy,
There’s a vast amount of literature available on the defining of culture and its complexity – so there’s plenty to read on the subject. It is paradigmatic and so not easily quantified or contained within any data. Needless to say I’ve indicated thae two main purveyors of culture – belief and tradition. Clearly, they vary and differ. Perhaps a Darwinian model applies where it is the ‘lasting values’ which give cause for a culture’s survival.

Oliver,
The paradox to which I referred relates to the values inherent within the current Westernisation ‘process’ (globalisation) we see occurring. Ironically, its individualism influences the diminishing of its own tradition along with the other cultures it ‘includes’ and influences. The main characteristics of Westernisation being economic liberalisation (free trade) and democratisation, combined with this is the spread of an individualised culture. A part of this Westernising process includes the legacy of a colonialism mixed with a Judeo-Christian background and tradition. This European culture has spread elsewhere in the world. Europe profoundly influenced the cultures of Africa, India, Israel, Australia, and other places colonised or settled by Europeans. A reaction to Westernisation can include the ‘black and white’ of fundamentalism and protectionism. Countries such as Japan and China tried to adopt isolationism, but they have been unable to resist the adoption of many aspects of Western culture.

Some view Westernisation as more a disadvantage, as for example Asian cultures who might lose much of their tradition with regards to their practices, diet and beliefs etc. The loss of the many cultures, through their Westernisation , however, would have to be viewed as a positive where they were formerly, on balance, a basis for repression.

Nope. Still don't get it relda.

>>As an example I’ll use the Hofstede and Triandis framework, Australians are described as horizontal (low power distance) individualists, i.e. they are highly autonomous and remain independent from their group with their own ambition taking precedence over any group ambition – behaviour is guided by ‘rights’ and ‘contracts’. As a counterpoint, Asians are classified as collectivistic, with high power distance – they have an emphasis on interdependence, group goals, obligations and duties. I’ll leave it to you to decide which culture exhibits the most variation.,,

I can accept that Australians "remain independent from their group with their own ambition taking precedence over any group ambition", and that this differs from, say, Japanese society's norms.

But I fail completely to make a connection between this and a "varied culture"?

You suggest that Australian culture is less varied than that of an Asian country, but then you baulk - "I’ll leave it to you to decide which culture exhibits the most variation"

Do your arguments hold true also for European countries? And how does the US rate on the scale of "behaviour... guided by ‘rights’ and ‘contracts’", compared with your measure of "cultural variation"?

Maybe some examples would help.

"At the centre of the ontology of the person is the community, indeed we cannot speak of personhood unless in the context of community. The individual, ontologically, can be said not to exist."

huh?

I'm with pericles, I don't get it either relda. And don't tell me again it;s because I can't understand what you are saying. It's probably because I understand what what you are saying is BS.
If it's not quantifiable, then how do you get quantity statements like "less varied"? You pulled it out of your almanac didn't you? Clearly, culture tautologially varies and differs between peoples (duh), but have you have not established whether cultures are more variable within the culture than between cultures. I would hazard to guess that an individualistic culture varies much more within than it does betwen other cultures.

Perhaps your "Darwinian model" could do with a tweak too. Rather than "lasting values giving cause for survival", perhaps you should view it as a "culling of values that give cause for a cultures non-survival". These are not the same thing.

Paradigmatic? Nay, it's alimentary dear Watson!

I can understand Bugsy's concern

>>The paradox to which I referred relates to the values inherent within the current Westernisation ‘process’ (globalisation) we see occurring. Ironically, its individualism influences the diminishing of its own tradition along with the other cultures it ‘includes’ and influences.<<

Leaving aside for a moment the complete absence of irony, ask yourself what the second sentence is saying.

"...its individualism..."

Is the "it" here supposed to be the paradox? Not possible. Perhaps "the inherent values"? Nope, they're plural. Must be "globalization, then.

Globalization has "individualism", relda?

You see the problem?

The rest of the paragraph is equally unsound.

>>Europe profoundly influenced the cultures of Africa, India, Israel, Australia, and other places colonised or settled by Europeans.<<

Profoundly, relda? I'd suggest the exact opposite. Once the colonials retreat, the jungle rapidly regrows to hide any trace. How much of Belgium is still evident in Rwanda? Or Italy in Eritrea?

>>A reaction to Westernisation can include the ‘black and white’ of fundamentalism and protectionism<<

A reaction to peanuts can include death, relda.

This illustrates the problem nicely. On the one hand you propose that Westernization "profoundly influenced the cultures", while on the other you suggest the precise opposite. That they reacted to it by adopting fundamentalism and protectionism.

English can be a beautiful - and simple - language, relda, if you allow it to be.

What you have created here is mere word soup.