The car is fabulous. As you suggest, there's something about the notion of diversity that presupposes uniformity. And the walk lightly principle reinforces uniformity in some ways...
I wonder if there are two levels of uniformity to pull apart? One a positive or empirical uniformity - in fact, (almost) everyone does thing X. The other a normative uniformity - (almost) everyone desires to do X and requires others to also do X.
I feel like our culture and cultural change happen in the slippage zone in between those two. Often a practice that is empirically uniform (perhaps for practical or historical reasons) can become a cultural norm; and cultural norms can create empirical uniformity. Diversity is when someone realises that a cultural norm no longer has a good reason to constrain them, and so deliberately or incidentally violates that norm. If these diversified practices have value, they may spread, and become a new empirical uniformity; and they may in turn become a new norm.
But all of this presupposes the existence of some legible uniformity, as you said, not just white noise.
I wonder how to square this sort of advice with the rules that make places like Mykonos or Santa Fe beautiful in their sameness - a hillside of gleaming white houses against a blue sea wouldn’t have the same effect with an orange one in the middle, and the look of all the adobe buildings against the desert of Santa Fe is beautiful too. You hint at this with the distinction between diversity and white noise - part of diversity is having places that are distinctive in their uniformity rather than every place having the same mix of everything. But there’s a broader question of when it’s more valuable to contribute to a “hipster subculture” that is unified in its rejection of the mainstream, rather than being a one-off of your own (or creating one of those homogeneous places that helps create global diversity).
Yes, nice examples! I agree with your remark here, and I think there can be two different ways of adding value consistent with this diversity-based approach: by contributing to a distinctive culture/pattern that is unified and stands out (like the white houses or the hipster subculture) or by breaking up the pattern by adding a new, distinctive color. Are there some principles to distinguish which approach is better in different cases? One start might be to consider the rarity or distinctiveness of the pattern that you are considering breaking, in the larger context of the world, and the extent to which it would be harmed by your not conforming to it.
Events like Zozobra, a constant array of street performers, artist, proud accepted self-dubbed "weirdos" wandering around and wonderful multiculturalism hardly qualify it as "uniform".
All the same it does speak to your point of the "sameness" of the Adobe architecture and the never-ending desert surroundings contrasted with these non-conforming things.
The car is fabulous. As you suggest, there's something about the notion of diversity that presupposes uniformity. And the walk lightly principle reinforces uniformity in some ways...
I wonder if there are two levels of uniformity to pull apart? One a positive or empirical uniformity - in fact, (almost) everyone does thing X. The other a normative uniformity - (almost) everyone desires to do X and requires others to also do X.
I feel like our culture and cultural change happen in the slippage zone in between those two. Often a practice that is empirically uniform (perhaps for practical or historical reasons) can become a cultural norm; and cultural norms can create empirical uniformity. Diversity is when someone realises that a cultural norm no longer has a good reason to constrain them, and so deliberately or incidentally violates that norm. If these diversified practices have value, they may spread, and become a new empirical uniformity; and they may in turn become a new norm.
But all of this presupposes the existence of some legible uniformity, as you said, not just white noise.
Yes, that does seem like part of the story, maybe a large part of it, if we have a weak, aesthetic sense of “norm”.
Yo this is next level parenting. Sick car, sick art, personality on point.
Thanks -- and no getting abducted by aliens, please.
I wonder how to square this sort of advice with the rules that make places like Mykonos or Santa Fe beautiful in their sameness - a hillside of gleaming white houses against a blue sea wouldn’t have the same effect with an orange one in the middle, and the look of all the adobe buildings against the desert of Santa Fe is beautiful too. You hint at this with the distinction between diversity and white noise - part of diversity is having places that are distinctive in their uniformity rather than every place having the same mix of everything. But there’s a broader question of when it’s more valuable to contribute to a “hipster subculture” that is unified in its rejection of the mainstream, rather than being a one-off of your own (or creating one of those homogeneous places that helps create global diversity).
Yes, nice examples! I agree with your remark here, and I think there can be two different ways of adding value consistent with this diversity-based approach: by contributing to a distinctive culture/pattern that is unified and stands out (like the white houses or the hipster subculture) or by breaking up the pattern by adding a new, distinctive color. Are there some principles to distinguish which approach is better in different cases? One start might be to consider the rarity or distinctiveness of the pattern that you are considering breaking, in the larger context of the world, and the extent to which it would be harmed by your not conforming to it.
I lived in Santa Fe for 3 years.
Events like Zozobra, a constant array of street performers, artist, proud accepted self-dubbed "weirdos" wandering around and wonderful multiculturalism hardly qualify it as "uniform".
All the same it does speak to your point of the "sameness" of the Adobe architecture and the never-ending desert surroundings contrasted with these non-conforming things.
Very true! I was thinking of the visual impression of the architecture, but you're absolutely right about the cultural and human aspects.
I am gunning for a job at the
Santa Fe Tourism Commission.
Thanks for your understanding!
A philosopher acknowledging creativity?
I hear the hallowed halls of the Stoa rattling in surprised approval.
Your advice to your wife and daughter is solid - of course, we here at Rule of Three believe in dispensing wisdom in threes:
https://ruleofthree.substack.com/p/welcome-to-rule-of-three?utm_source=publication-search