Constancy Preference: Difference between revisions
Created page with "A common thing in humans across cultures is the desire to preserve things as they are. This must be fairly adaptive since it is so widespread. But the shape of constancy is different in different places. At least two varieties of constancy preference I've seen are: * Formal constancy * Conceptual constancy Things of the former sort are constant in form. Examples of these are buildings that are preserved to exact structure, words in languages that are prescriptively sp..." |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Formal constancy is far stronger preferred among people. This shows in historical preservation commissions in cities, prescriptivist language committees, and most traditions of history - which strive to rigorously and formally encode point-in-time observations. | Formal constancy is far stronger preferred among people. This shows in historical preservation commissions in cities, prescriptivist language committees, and most traditions of history - which strive to rigorously and formally encode point-in-time observations. | ||
Most people would prefer that, if we were to find a historical statue, that we keep it in the form that it was found: damage and all. | |||
For most people, formal constancy is the only form of constancy and so they don't see any need to describe it as formal constancy. | For most people, formal constancy is the only form of constancy and so they don't see any need to describe it as formal constancy. | ||
| Line 19: | Line 21: | ||
Personally, I lean in many ways to preferring conceptual constancy when I desire constancy. Stories like those about a Japanese building that is rebuilt every now and then and still described as the original building appeal to me. This is even particularly interesting to me when it's like the Ise Grand Shrine, which is rebuilt every 20 years and allows for improvements of architecture and material. This building, at most 20 years old, is nonetheless considered the same ancient shrine. Great stuff! | Personally, I lean in many ways to preferring conceptual constancy when I desire constancy. Stories like those about a Japanese building that is rebuilt every now and then and still described as the original building appeal to me. This is even particularly interesting to me when it's like the Ise Grand Shrine, which is rebuilt every 20 years and allows for improvements of architecture and material. This building, at most 20 years old, is nonetheless considered the same ancient shrine. Great stuff! | ||
Another example is that of the famous statue of [[wikipedia:Laocoön and His Sons|Laocoön and His Sons]]. Unearthed 1500 years after it was built, Laocoön promptly had a missing arm replaced. The arm itself was incorrect against the original, and one could reasonably argue that it diminished the original work's story. So this is both inconstancy of form and concept. With the rediscovered arm restored in the 1980s, the story is retold correctly again. A 400 year old historical modification undone. | |||
Storytellers, in particular, are subject to this notion of formal constancy. I remember reading, though I've since lost the source, of an oral storytelling tradition that was informed that their version of the story was not the story - since the story had been recorded by a visiting historian years ago. | Storytellers, in particular, are subject to this notion of formal constancy. I remember reading, though I've since lost the source, of an oral storytelling tradition that was informed that their version of the story was not the story - since the story had been recorded by a visiting historian years ago. | ||
This is particularly interesting to me because I frequently tell stories to people. My close friends (particularly my wife) have heard these stories numerous times. And they have noticed that the details change in the telling. This is true. But it's the same story. And even if I were to write it down and tell something with different words, the story is the same. | This is particularly interesting to me because I frequently tell stories to people. My close friends (particularly [[Julie Yu Kang|my wife]]) have heard these stories numerous times. And they have noticed that the details change in the telling. This is true. But it's the same story. And even if I were to write it down and tell something with different words, the story is the same. | ||
[[Category:Concepts]] | [[Category:Concepts]] | ||
Latest revision as of 18:33, 4 November 2024
A common thing in humans across cultures is the desire to preserve things as they are. This must be fairly adaptive since it is so widespread. But the shape of constancy is different in different places.
At least two varieties of constancy preference I've seen are:
- Formal constancy
- Conceptual constancy
Things of the former sort are constant in form. Examples of these are buildings that are preserved to exact structure, words in languages that are prescriptively spelled and used the same, and objects in museums preserved as they are.
Things of the latter sort are constant in concept. Examples of these are oral storytelling traditions, Ise Jingū (rebuilt every 20 years with variation - though minimal), and people.
Formal Constancy[edit]
Formal constancy is far stronger preferred among people. This shows in historical preservation commissions in cities, prescriptivist language committees, and most traditions of history - which strive to rigorously and formally encode point-in-time observations.
Most people would prefer that, if we were to find a historical statue, that we keep it in the form that it was found: damage and all.
For most people, formal constancy is the only form of constancy and so they don't see any need to describe it as formal constancy.
Conceptual Constancy[edit]
Personally, I lean in many ways to preferring conceptual constancy when I desire constancy. Stories like those about a Japanese building that is rebuilt every now and then and still described as the original building appeal to me. This is even particularly interesting to me when it's like the Ise Grand Shrine, which is rebuilt every 20 years and allows for improvements of architecture and material. This building, at most 20 years old, is nonetheless considered the same ancient shrine. Great stuff!
Another example is that of the famous statue of Laocoön and His Sons. Unearthed 1500 years after it was built, Laocoön promptly had a missing arm replaced. The arm itself was incorrect against the original, and one could reasonably argue that it diminished the original work's story. So this is both inconstancy of form and concept. With the rediscovered arm restored in the 1980s, the story is retold correctly again. A 400 year old historical modification undone.
Storytellers, in particular, are subject to this notion of formal constancy. I remember reading, though I've since lost the source, of an oral storytelling tradition that was informed that their version of the story was not the story - since the story had been recorded by a visiting historian years ago.
This is particularly interesting to me because I frequently tell stories to people. My close friends (particularly my wife) have heard these stories numerous times. And they have noticed that the details change in the telling. This is true. But it's the same story. And even if I were to write it down and tell something with different words, the story is the same.
