Technology is an aspect of culture, IMO. I'm not sure how you could have technology arising without culture, but I can easily imagine culture without technology.
Physiology as it was understood then? Or as it's understood now? Surely it's unhelpful to project present day scientific norms, and it's better to accept that the world really was flat, epicycles were real, and that mice and flies spontaneously generated from inanimate matter. It's just ideological inflexibility to believe that physical, chemical and biological functions as we understand them today applied to people in the past. :eyeroll:
Yes, everything we think we know will be better explained later. We will always have to keep reappraising everything as more information comes in, just like we always have done.
Queer has your definition today, but as recently as a few decades ago it had a broader meaning. I'm using it in the broader sense to describe people who are ostracised or 'othered' for behaving outside of the norm. That's not limited to whatever equivalents of the LGBT+alphabet who were around at the time, it also includes women who thought they could do more in life than what their sex determined, and men who didn't belong in the roles assigned to them either, and of course people who we'd probably diagnose with all kinds of disorders today as well.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Tue 10 Aug 2021, 21:40,
Reply)
whatever
"the world really was flat" - to all intents and purposes, it was. Until long-distance navigation became a thing.
"epicycles were real" - again, they were actually real. The stars went around in little circles across the sky. Without the need to think of the world as a globe it made perfect sense.
"mice and flies spontaneously generated" - not quite. Flies, yes. If you looked very carefully, even the smallest pieces of food were full of worms.
I think you'll find that queer meant sexual deviant in the time you're referring to. Max Nordau is the reference point really. You have to realize that anything out of the ordinary was seen as a transgression of christian morality, not some kind of optional cultural novelty.
(, Tue 10 Aug 2021, 22:20, Reply)
Your kind of relativism is silly and I poke my nose at it and blow a raspberry like so :¬P
The universe does not care how you think it works. Physical, chemical and biological 'laws'* apply without regard to the ignorance of any observer. To a MUCH, much, much, much, much MUCH lesser extent, so too do anthropological and sociological 'laws'**, even if one is not inclined to accept what we have now as true sciences.
*Whatever they truly are; the absolute truth (which may forever elude human understanding), which is wise to assume exists.***
**As above, with the assumption that the absolute fullest understanding of the hard sciences would, by inference, reveal*** and, by scientific method, confirm the truest possible understanding of the soft sciences.
***Not in a fucking religious or spiritual way, obviously.
Oh and no, queer didn't mean that at the timeS I refer to. It meant, as I say, odd, strange, peculiar, abnormal. And you will accept that that is how I'm using the word, damn you.
:)
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Tue 10 Aug 2021, 23:01,
Reply)
"Odd, strange, peculiar, abnormal" *was* sexual deviance
or at least moral deviance. I admit the sexual element only really came to predominate in the early C20th. The point is that it wasn't a cultural choice then, it was a moral one.
The point I'm making is that any scientific vision that doesn't see itself a temporary stopgap until something better comes along is a bunch of hooey.*
*not that kind of hooey, you pervert.
(, Wed 11 Aug 2021, 3:15, Reply)
Moral relativism is one thing, scientific/factual relativism is just Republican Party level insane.
The word I chose includes sexually 'deviant' people, but is not limited to it.
One's sexuality is widely understood to not be a choice.
The scientific method incorporates your strangely redundant point about scientific vision.
We can't seem to agree on matters of fact, or even agree on a common lexicon, so this conversation is going nowhere!
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Wed 11 Aug 2021, 14:42,
Reply)