So basically the question here is whether or not culture "benefits" the masses, or individual. One might ask the question "why even ask the question?" culture has been part of mankind's performance for centuries upon centuries. There is no point then to question culture's benefits, because the benefits are therefore rooted in the fundamentals of nature. Man cannot help dude to his present state of "being human" the consequences of certain aspects regarding his behavior. Well to rebuttal this sort of argument you must ask the questions how are nature's fundamentals defined and how do you define this as true? Let us first look at the second question. How do you define this as true? What do I mean by that? This is to say that truth subjective when applied to man's conscious. Of course if you speak of the Truth then I would say it is objective. But regarding the truths of Human Notions, a truth becomes subjective. So if a truth is so subjective, then how do you make one subjective truth more valuable, or more approachable, when comparing it the another subjective truth. This seems difficult because each truth is vastly experimental in a sense. To sum this up in a matter of words; Truth is an objective point where the purest form resides, a truth is a subjective point in a man's mind due to its manifestation within the human psyche. So how can we compare subjective manifestations? This is due to tiny equal parts within the human consciousness. Culture manifests within the consciousness but is not part of the root. This makes certain small aspects of human tendencies the same. Therefore if the consequences of a certain combination of aspects is beneficial, then we shall deem it beneficial. So then culture, being a manifestation of the mind, can be deemed beneficial due to its almost constant existence within man's quest. So it seems almost impossible that culture could not be beneficial to man. But let us take an example of existence that is considered non-beneficial. For example let us take acne, this will be used as an example due to the individual effects that it would have. In regards to the whole, if acne was taken away it would barely damage anything it seems. So why does concern acne exist as a manifestation of the mind? If acne is causing no direct threat to anything than why would the concern for having acne arise? So given what we have said previously the concern for acne should be beneficial. Which in some small ways it is. But is it really beneficial? As humans to survive do we need this reliance on caring about acne to survive. Then having concern for acne is not beneficial in a sense, and it outweighs the benefits. Acne course can be socially looked down upon, but are those people being beneficial when they look down on it? Acne does not block any part of the human potential unless taken to extremes. So does not culture apply to this, but only on a larger scale? Where culture non-benefits outweighs the benefits, regardless of the mass opinion? Culture only exists differently from acne in the fact that is it more subjective. Acne can easily be objective and spotted, whereas culture is vastly subjective, and maybe only exists objectively outside the human understanding. Such as Truth, Culture is the pure form of the ideal. A culture is the subjective product of a mass. So the question of cultures being beneficial remains in doubt. So that is what I wish to ask you guys, do you think culture to be beneficial or non-beneficial.

My personal opinion is that culture is highly non-beneficial do to the things that manifest from culture. I know Terence Mckenna would also talk about how culture is our enemy. I don't want to write a lot about my opinion because I wish to see what you guys think.

I think that when you define culture as the enemy, you are isolating one aspect of what culture actually is and not looking at the bigger picture. In the same speech where he says that culture is the enemy, he also emphasises the value of art.
Most people see art as something that belongs to culture.

I think that the totality of what binds humans, is on average more beneficial than destructive or contingent. It´s hard not to see both destructive and constructive forces at play in all that holds society toghether. But in most cases i think that the constructive and beneficial forces outweigh the destructive forces.

If i would have to draw a line between those aspects of society that belong to culture and those that do not, i would say that all thoughts, activities and beliefs that naturally bind people, all the things that people naturally tend to share is 'culture' and all the things that are forced upon people (once they´ve reached a certain age that is) are not.

If people feel that they belong to a certain society because they can identify with certain values, or because they share a certain taste it´s 'culture'. If people are forced to be loyal to a certain group or regime, like what´s happening in syria, it´s no longer culture that binds them, but violence and intimidation.

In my view, culture is a positive sort of binding agent, a positive sort of 'glue', that people adhere to out of their own choice, and violence and opression is a negative 'glue'.

Okay so with art I feel like there is a huge difference than with culture. Art is a form of expression that is issued practically, but experimentally by the individual. Whereas culture is a form of mass expression on a very practical level, and very little experimentation goes on. The experimental factors in culture are brought about by lower forms of manifestation that culture bring into existence.

So why does art then have value and culture no? Art is a form of personal learning, each artist and person perceiving the art takes something away from them. While culture is a almost a thing that we live under, and it does not propel us forward as individuals. In fact the current culture I live in seems to do the opposite, it wishes to define us as a generalized mass.

So the point being INDIVIDUALITY is positive. Culture CAN be beneficial when acting as a glue between different experimental aspects, or different truths. It could be beneficial if it helped us work our way up to become the Truth. But culture in my eyes does not do this. It tries to generalize the whole population as a means of practical execution. This means that culture preys on what benefits the masses, or in benefiting the masses benefits itself. It does not look to preserve the individuality in which we must bloom forth.

Art on the other hand spurs this individual growth. Which is beneficial.

[/quote]In my view, culture is a positive sort of binding agent, a positive sort of 'glue', that people adhere to out of their own choice, and violence and opression is a negative 'glue'.[/quote]

So saying this we could say that "art" or freedom of individual experimentation acts as a positive glue. While culture acts as a negative glue. Culture manifests the manifestation of violence and oppression because of its non individual properties.

Hope this makes sense at all

"Culture is not your friend"- Terrence McKenna