You can never step into the same river twice. The universe is in a constant state of flux. People are born and die and birth is death and a circle is the same on the way up and the way down. Culture is always being annihilated and coming into being.
But is any of that actually consistent with reality?For something to change it must become something it is not. All things are being. And to become something else it must be acted on by something other than being. The opposite of being is nonbeing, which doesn't exist.
Therefore, change is impossible.
But change is possible. We can see it. Perhaps the culture is not being annihilated but merely changing, that is, retaining some aspects of its character while losing and gaining others? Perhaps the culture both exists as an entity in its current state whilst maintaining the potential to become something else later? The culture is always changing, yet there are also things that do not change.
The real question is not whether or not it will change but what it will change into. You can go out and design an anti-culture for whatever it is you believe the culture should not be like, and adopt it. But if you succeed it merely becomes your new culture. The initial adoption of a radical idea succeeds not when its proponents are on the forefront of social change but when its proponents have become conservative because they want to maintain the status quo. The reason why they want to maintain the status quo is because they have won. Change for its own sake without a vision is like getting in the car and driving wherever you feel without a destination in mind.
If, somehow, you did manage to create a world with no culture whatsoever you'd have created a bland army of clones, people like particles in a box, thermodynamically interchangeable. There is no such thing as a neutral idea of identity absent social influence. The only feasible way of removing man from his environment is to lock him in a new one, and without culture it would be a jail cell.
Poll
