Even if you should disagree with me I hope that you at least may understand what I'm getting at.
I'm working on it.
I think I am wrestling most with understanding what you define as "culture". I am also looking at the question of what constitutes "cause", versus what is "effect". I think it is that blend that causes confusion.
I don't hate jeans, MP3's, etc (and the latter at least might perhaps be called a technological rather than cultural thing, but I would have to look further into that before commenting) but I would like to invoke my examples of the Hindus and Muslims again, who are clearly distinguishable, (albeit still using modern technology,)
Are you saying Indian culture is easily distinguishable from Moslem? Or that both of them are easily distinguished from Western culture? What do you think constitutes the differences? Hat/turban styles? Robes and saris? Living in caves versus ornate architecture?
Perhaps I am a little dense and more than a little outside my area of expertise, but I sometimes have difficulty with defining what constitutes a unique "culture". Is it merely the externals of style and fashion? Is culture really such a shallow concept?
Aren't most humans pretty much the same, with the same needs and goals? At the end of the day, don't we all seek security, comfort, and deep relationships?
Now, you can say "the West" consists of multiple cultures of course, just as you can subdivide the Indic culture into multiple cultures, and there is no end of subdividing.
You can speak of a rockabilly or greaser "culture" if you want, but I would say this little culture is a part of the Western. You can say any street corner has its own culture, and I wouldn't dispute that (depending on definition of the term culture) but I wouldn't get into such small-picture perspective but rather look at what I would call "the big picture" which for whatever reason people have apparently reacted antagonistically to.
I do appreciate that you indicate your concern is not with the micro level of popular regional clothing or dress. Those are definitely what we would refer to as sub-cultures.
I would like to invoke my examples of the Hindus and Muslims again, who are clearly distinguishable, (albeit still using modern technology,) whereas Messianics generally do not wear Tzitzit or have any other of the signs that set them apart and which in the past set Israel apart from Egypt and Greece.
And yet, tzitzit are defined as being for the sake of the individual Israeli. They are reminders to obey the mitzvot, not for the purpose of setting the Hebrew apart from the Gentile culture around him.
The Hindus and Muslims have distinct architecture for that matter, but Messianics do not as far as I know - though they may insist that some slight variation on typical Western architecture makes them distinct.
At this point, I begin to wonder if you aren't confusing the chicken with the egg. You seem to assume that the architecture is consciously a method of setting oneself apart from other communities. I would assume the other way around--that differences and distinctions grew up around the pervasive practices of the local people. Religion reflects the culture in which it thrives, not the other way around.
I'm sure that point is arguable, and might lead to some interesting discussion.
Hence, for example, the commandment regarding roof parapets is seldom needed. Hence an obviation of the commandment in Debarim 22:8 (though not a breaking of it) and it is as though it were never spoken.
Interesting example. Parapets are, after all, simply low walls designed for the protection of those who spent a great deal of time on the roof--they are a form of technology. They serve the same purpose as fences, windows, and literal protecting walls. I don't think they are ignored--the practice has simply been absorbed into our common practice.
Generally though I have been referring to the architecture of religious buildings when using the term architecture.
It seems to me that huge portions of the Torah have been rolled into common practice in our culture. It is not a matter of ignoring the practices, so much as we do them unconsciously. Ask anyone who cracks an egg into a cake batter, and discovers a line of blood in the yolk. The batter is discarded. Why? That is a kashrut restriction.
I am NOT saying it is a sin to dress in jeans
My wife and I both thank you.
but is it not notable that the ancient Israelite way is almost entirely internal at this point
I would say, not entirely internal, but the principles are generally made pervasive and unconscious.
with the external aspects most similar to it being considered basically Muslim ?
Both are Middle Eastern cultures, reflecting similar values and necessities that come from the geography and lifestyle.
This is not just the case for Western Messianics, but also in a sense for the people of the modern state of Israel. Perhaps if the Arabs all abandoned Islam and Monotheism en masse the Israelis would be less threatened by and feel more welcome to be middle-eastern, Semitic and grow to resemble their middle-eastern, Semitic forefathers, and abandon all the abstractions of the West and abandon the hairy Russian hats.
I think you've begun to hit the nail on the head. Modern Jewish culture largely reflects the style and dress of the lands in which they have thrived for the past 1900 years. They have brought with them the architecture and the manner of dress they picked up in those lands. In more recent times, those who stepped away from those older norms would naturally adopt the norms of the culture in which they live.
Again, I don't hate hairy hats, I am just confounded as to why these Western (or Russian) signs are preferred by modern Israelis rather than the aesthetic, the external, the "superficial" signs of the ancient forefathers - so for me it is a matter of to the extent the aesthetic, the external, the "superficial" is commanded, as with Tzitzit, and to the extent it is not commanded in Scripture.
There's that chicken-and-egg thing--does the religion drive the culture, or does the culture drive the religious expression?
I wager that when the Jews went into or were ruled over by Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece or Rome the cultural distortion was not HALF as powerful as that imposed by the West.
I think I'd take that wager. The influences of Egypt, Assyrian, Babylonia, Greece, etc. were HUGE, and the impact is still felt to this day. For instance, most Jewish/Christian theology was formed in the yeshivot of Babylonia.
