[Wellsy]

How does one discern what tradition existed and not fall into selecting past practices based on the present or arbitrarily what one already values? That is one injects modern views and values upon history.

How is one tradition rated against another if they are in conflict? Is one being older automatically better or is it about the content of the traditions?

And can some traditions be meaningfully recreated in modern conditions? That is the values existed within a particular way of life that no longer exists and is why the tradition has itself ceased.

I think of how opera was born from attempts to recreate greek tragedies, the attempt to recreate simply created something new.

[Wellsy]

I am now realizing that implicit in my questions is a modernist emphasis on reasons but many traditionalists resort to voluntarism in which the will is primary and there is less of a concern for things being an objective truth as much as belief making something true enough.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(philosophy)

So there would be no need to be too critical of the selection process of examination of history as its simply a matter of imposing ones values and the consideration that this is what everyone else is already doing but you wish for your values to be generalized instead of others. Reasoning is deemphasized as having a significant place in deciding such things.

[ckaihatsu]

I think you're *mixing scales*, Wellsy -- the *pace* of 'traditions' takes place over *centuries*, and their 'adjustment' at any given moment is probably *imperceptible*, as one king pulled the drapes *this* way, while the next king pulled the drapes *that* way, etc.

By positing the subject at the *individual* scale you're asking this generic individual 'witness' to account for *organizational* changes / adaptations, yet the dynamics to be witnessed take place over *historical* time, of many individual *lifetimes*.

*Also*, by situating the witnessing within one individual's lifespan you're disregarding the effect of *power*, for the sake of social-organization and 'traditions'.


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

[Wellsy]

@ckaihatsu
I am aware traditions tends to extend across centuries and are even constituted by several practices. I keep Alasdair MacIntyre in mind here.
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=rel_fac_pub

The cornerstone of this backdrop is the idea of practices. Macintyre defines a practice somewhat tortuously as

any coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative human activity through which goods internal to that form of activity are realized in the course of trying to achieve those standards of excellence which are appropriate to, and partially definitive of, that form of activity, with the result that human powers to achieve excellence, and human conceptions of the ends and goods involved, are systemati- cally extended. (187)

Attention to the grammar of this sentence reveals four central con- cepts. First, practices are human activities. However, these are not activi- ties of isolated individuals but socially established and cooperative activities. Such activities cannot be executed alone but require participa- tion by like-minded others. In addition to being social, these activities are also complex enough to be challenging, and coherent enough to aim at some goal in a unified fashion. Building a house is a practice, while tak-
ing long showers is not. ] he game of tennis is a practice, but hitting a backhand is not. Medicine is a practice, while gargling mouthwash is not. 16
…
In our smorgasbord era it is tempting to think of practices as self- contained exercises. In fact, many practices are so complex that they have become an entire tradition in themselves. Medicine, science, and war craft all have attending epistemologies, authoritative texts, structured commu- nities and institutions, and histories of development. Other practices are parts of clusters that contribute to the identity of a tradition.

For example, the Christian tradition defines itself as a socially expanding movement called "the kingdom of God." At its core, therefore, Christianity seems to consist primarily of the practice of community formation. Subpractices that contribute to community formation can be categorized under the rubrics of witness, worship, works of mercy, discernment, and disciple- ship.19 Other schemes can be imagined of course, but my point is that
Christianity cannot be explained or understood without reference to a dis- tinctive cluster of practices. In order to participate in the tradition called Christianity one must necessarily participate in these practices. To put it another way, to participate in the community is to participate in practices because communal life is the point at which the practices intersect. Furthermore, knowing the constitutive practices of Christianity tells us a great deal about how Christians ought to live. If virtues are cultivated by striving for excellence in the practice of practices, then we are unable to grow in Christlikeness unless we participate in Christianity's practices.

And what you present as a dilemma is simply a limitation of history.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/determinism.htm

Even though consciousness can only be directly experienced subjectively, subjective experience cannot be scientific. The science of consciousness, not unlike the sciences of history and geology, relies on surmising the subject matter from objective traces given to the researcher in the observation of behavior. But these traces are not themselves the subject matter of the science. The intelligible explanation of historical processes entails surmising what can never be observed, and first-person reports of historical events are no more than evidence which the historian places alongside other evidence. Nonetheless, historiography relies on the plausibility of intelligible explanations of great historical changes in terms of mundane conversations and concrete events and seeks evidence of such events wherever possible.

What I am curious about is how a conservative navigates such traditions and practices and selects what is valuable and what has degenerated. As there is often w call to protect the wisdom of past practices. I’m wondering if there is something more to it than an arbitrary projection if what one already values onto the past like how utopians project the present into the future.

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Virtue%20and%20Utopia.pdf

The mere posing of socialist society as an end is misconceived. It is not a question of bringing means and ends into conformity, as many argue, and any attempt to do so can only lead to a barren utopianism by subordinating our means ‒ our organising practices of today ‒ to an imaginary utopia ‒ a world in which the socialist ethic has been universalised. In fact, when I do this, what is actually happening is that:

I begin with my spontaneously adopted ethics;

I then (consciously or unconsciously) project them on to a future socialist society, and

I then deduce the ethics with which I actually began, but now with the illusory justification that it prefigures our shared end, socialist society.

In other words, it is a fraud. (It is somewhat like the argument which project capitalist competition on to Nature, and then claimed that competition is the way of the world, human as well as natural). It implies discussing how to collaborate here and now in terms of how we think people living in some imaginary future society would collaborate, when differences in wealth, power, education and welfare have been overcome and no longer have to be taken into account.

My cynical side characterizes many conservatives as just defending norms which people have since done away with as they became fetters on better ways of life. It seems to me that often there is an attachment to views and values that originate from and existed within particular ways of life that fell away and so to did the values.

Even religions have had to adapt and change to different conditions and challenges yet it still retains continuity like any tradition where earlier critiques result in a specific development in the institutions. Many are now looking at the Catholic church to significantly address the continuation and conditions of the broad child abuse that has been covered up, hurting a lot of peoples connection to the church.

[ckaihatsu]

tortuously

Well, you *warned* me. (!) (grin) Welcome-to-sociology, huh -- ?

I'd say 'practice' = *event*.

(Please note all greater 'levels' of 'magnitude' *above* 'events' / ('practices'). 'Practices' could also translate to higher-level, more-sustaining 'institutions' ('movements / institutions' in the diagram.)


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show

[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show

---

@ckaihatsu
I am aware traditions tends to extend across centuries and are even constituted by several practices. I keep Alasdair MacIntyre in mind here.
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=rel_fac_pub

And what you present as a dilemma is simply a limitation of history.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/determinism.htm

Yeah -- that's what *I'm* saying -- 'traditions' take place over *long* timeframes, longer than any one person's given lifetime, so that an academic / organizational approach is a *must*, to study such 'long waves' of cultural development.

What I am curious about is how a conservative navigates such traditions and practices and selects what is valuable and what has degenerated. As there is often w call to protect the wisdom of past practices. I’m wondering if there is something more to it than an arbitrary projection if what one already values onto the past like how utopians project the present into the future.

Regarding the *right* wing -- (and, yes, the left-right distinction *does* make a difference / is-pertinent) -- I *am* currently terming them as 'NIMBYists':

I realized that the NIMBY ultra-nationalists / violent Trumpist loyalists, conform to *Foucault's* theory of power:

Foucault's power analysis begins on micro-level, with singular "force relations". Richard A. Lynch defines Foucault's concept of "force relation" as "whatever in one's social interactions that pushes, urges or compels one to do something."[200] According to Foucault, force relations are an effect of difference, inequality or unbalance that exists in other forms of relationships (such as sexual or economic). Force, and power, is however not something that a person or group "holds" (such as in the sovereign definition of power), instead power is a complex group of forces that comes from "everything" and therefore exists everywhere. That relations of power always result from inequality, difference or unbalance also means that power always has a goal or purpose. Power comes in two forms: tactics and strategies. Tactics is power on the micro-level, which can for example be how a person chooses to express themselves through their clothes. Strategies on the other hand, is power on macro-level, which can be the state of fashion at any moment. Strategies consist of a combination of tactics. At the same time, power is non-subjective according to Foucault. This posits a paradox, according to Lynch, since "someone" has to exert power, while at the same time there can be no "someone" exerting this power.[199]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault#Politics

viewtopic.php?p=15253344#p15253344

And:


[6] Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show

Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show

---

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Virtue%20and%20Utopia.pdf

The mere posing of socialist society as an end is misconceived. It is not a question of bringing means and ends into conformity, as many argue, and any attempt to do so can only lead to a barren utopianism by subordinating our means ‒ our organising practices of today ‒ to an imaginary utopia ‒ a world in which the socialist ethic has been universalised. In fact, when I do this, what is actually happening is that:

I begin with my spontaneously adopted ethics;

I then (consciously or unconsciously) project them on to a future socialist society, and

I then deduce the ethics with which I actually began, but now with the illusory justification that it prefigures our shared end, socialist society.

In other words, it is a fraud. (It is somewhat like the argument which project capitalist competition on to Nature, and then claimed that competition is the way of the world, human as well as natural). It implies discussing how to collaborate here and now in terms of how we think people living in some imaginary future society would collaborate, when differences in wealth, power, education and welfare have been overcome and no longer have to be taken into account.

I suppose that *is* an accurate description of utopianism / utopian-thinking, then.

*My own* conclusion -- and you're free to call it 'projecting into the future', if you like -- is that *some* kind of social conditions of 'material factionalism' will always continuously exist, in greater or lesser degrees of *intensity*, depending on the given mode-of-production. For *capitalism*, obviously material legacies of *wealth* are conferred with disproportionate social importance and deference -- especially for matters of social-production.

Could a world conceivably / potentially liberated from private property be so-freed to produce for *itself* -- ? Is that too much 'projecting' -- ?

There's *no hint of economic democracy here*, as has been noted before -- the overall capitalist political economy is one of 'fixed' material-world 'policy' norms, inherently split along timeless socio-material social *roles* / relations, whether lifelong or shifting -- what I call 'inherent material factionalism'.

viewtopic.php?p=15253905#p15253905

---


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show

---

My cynical side characterizes many conservatives as just defending norms which people have since done away with as they became fetters on better ways of life. It seems to me that often there is an attachment to views and values that originate from and existed within particular ways of life that fell away and so to did the values.

Even religions have had to adapt and change to different conditions and challenges yet it still retains continuity like any tradition where earlier critiques result in a specific development in the institutions. Many are now looking at the Catholic church to significantly address the continuation and conditions of the broad child abuse that has been covered up, hurting a lot of peoples connection to the church.

All-of-society, I would argue -- look at the women's march (2017), and BLM (2020), particularly.

(Schematically that's the 'movements / institutions' level tipping in favor of 'movements', over 'institutions'.)


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

In other words, it is a fraud. (It is somewhat like the argument which project capitalist competition on to Nature, and then claimed that competition is the way of the world, human as well as natural). It implies discussing how to collaborate here and now in terms of how we think people living in some imaginary future society would collaborate, when differences in wealth, power, education and welfare have been overcome and no longer have to be taken into account.

I have 'competition' as being an 'emergent-social-history' kind of dynamic, along with 'cooperation', similarly, along with 'games / sports':


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show

Certainly both cooperation and competition exist in both natural society and in *modern* society as well -- those are distinctly different things, though, of course, since the human social world is potentially under *coordinated social control*, while the animal world *isn't* (on its own).

[Wellsy]

Well, you *warned* me. (!) (grin) Welcome-to-sociology, huh -- ?

I'd say 'practice' = *event*.

(Please note all greater 'levels' of 'magnitude' *above* 'events' / ('practices'). 'Practices' could also translate to higher-level, more-sustaining 'institutions' ('movements / institutions' in the diagram.)

I don’t quite agree with likening practices to events as practice opens itself to being longer in time rather than a specific event in time. An event can be a single instance of a practice.

But practices start as social movements and turn into institutions as they objectify themselves as a sustained practice in society rather than just a temporary explosion of coordinated action.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Jamison.pdf
So I think we agree perhaps on the relationship between the two as every movement is an effort to generalize their practice and values within across some part of society or at least within a tradition like with a critique of a branch of scientific practice.

Yeah -- that's what *I'm* saying -- 'traditions' take place over *long* timeframes, longer than any one person's given lifetime, so that an academic / organizational approach is a *must*, to study such 'long waves' of cultural development.

Then we’re in agreement on the need for such an approach which opens up to debates in histography intelligible explanations.
Traditions and their development are extensive.

Regarding the *right* wing -- (and, yes, the left-right distinction *does* make a difference / is-pertinent) -- I *am* currently terming them as 'NIMBYists':

Well a lot of changes are unpleasant and often exhausting as it entails learning which is more taxing than habits and norms one already has in place. They of course have lifestyles that have been outside the influence of urban trends and find them distasteful and misplaced. But taken to extremes get fascist sorts that valorize traditions of white supremacy and sexism as they seek to curtail the autonomy and well being of women and people of color.

I suppose that *is* an accurate description of utopianism / utopian-thinking, then.

*My own* conclusion -- and you're free to call it 'projecting into the future', if you like -- is that *some* kind of social conditions of 'material factionalism' will always continuously exist, in greater or lesser degrees of *intensity*, depending on the given mode-of-production. For *capitalism*, obviously material legacies of *wealth* are conferred with disproportionate social importance and deference -- especially for matters of social-production.

Could a world conceivably / potentially liberated from private property be so-freed to produce for *itself* -- ? Is that too much 'projecting' -- ?

Yes there will still be struggles but presumably not ones based as significantly upon economic coercion.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1904/condel/conart.htm

The abolition of the capitalist system will, undoubtedly, solve the economic side of the Woman Question, but it will solve that alone. The question of marriage, of divorce, of paternity, of the equality of woman with man are physical and sexual questions, or questions of temperamental affiliation as in marriage, and were we living in a Socialist Republic would still be hotly contested as they are to-day. One great element of disagreement would be removed – the economic – but men and women would still be unfaithful to their vows, and questions of the intellectual equality of the sexes would still be as much in dispute as they are today, even although economic equality would be assured. To take a case in point: Suppose a man and woman married. The man after a few years ceases to love the woman, his wife, and loves another. But his wife's love for him has only increased with the passage of years, and she has borne him children. He wishes to leave her and consort with his new love. Will the fact that her economic future is secured be any solace to the deserted mother or to her children? Decidedly not! It is, a human and sexual problem, not an economic problem at all. Unjust economic conditions aggravate the evil, but do not create it.

So there will still be different views and people siding on one or the other.

All-of-society, I would argue -- look at the women's march (2017), and BLM (2020), particularly.

(Schematically that's the 'movements / institutions' level tipping in favor of 'movements', over 'institutions'.)


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show

[Robert Urbanek]

The last word on the subject?

https://youtu.be/6nwj8nAYEM4

[ckaihatsu]

I don’t quite agree with likening practices to events as practice opens itself to being longer in time rather than a specific event in time. An event can be a single instance of a practice.

But practices start as social movements and turn into institutions as they objectify themselves as a sustained practice in society rather than just a temporary explosion of coordinated action.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Jamison.pdf
So I think we agree perhaps on the relationship between the two as every movement is an effort to generalize their practice and values within across some part of society or at least within a tradition like with a critique of a branch of scientific practice.

Yeah.

Then we’re in agreement on the need for such an approach which opens up to debates in histography intelligible explanations.
Traditions and their development are extensive.

Here's a tool for keeping track of to-dos / projects, based on the scientific method:


database-type functionality

A Few Tools for Your Computer [March 16, 2022]

viewtopic.php?p=15218131#p15218131

9. OPTIMIZATION / PERFECTION / FINE-TUNING

8. CONCEIVABLE / IMAGINED / GOAL / WISHFUL THINKING

7. EXPECTED / REASONED / THEORIZED

6. OBSERVED (after) / EXECUTION / HOW-IT-WENT

5. EXPERIMENTATION by SCALE or SCOPE (core, periphery)

4. ACTIVITY / TASK / SOCIAL ORGANIZATION / MATERIAL INPUT-OUTPUT

3. HYPOTHESIS (of new situation) / RESPONSE

2. ANALYSIS (of RELEVANT PAST) / CONFIRMATION

1. OBSERVED (before) / RELEVANT PAST / RESEARCH

---

Well a lot of changes are unpleasant and often exhausting as it entails learning which is more taxing than habits and norms one already has in place. They of course have lifestyles that have been outside the influence of urban trends and find them distasteful and misplaced. But taken to extremes get fascist sorts that valorize traditions of white supremacy and sexism as they seek to curtail the autonomy and well being of women and people of color.

From recent conversations I've happened upon the 'rationale' that fascist herd-hierarchy-making is based on *population density* -- so cities are more crowded, hence they need to be 'relieved' of that population-density by whatever means, etc. (shudder)

Yes there will still be struggles but presumably not ones based as significantly upon economic coercion.

A fully post-capitalist / post-commodity world society *couldn't* spur any economic coercion, strictly speaking -- with no social means by which to *accumulate* (especially into commodity money), there's no way to 'edge-out' / displace anyone else since everyone will be materially limited to the wherewithal of their *own persons* for any *individual* appetites.

I myself don't 'predict' any 'struggles' post-capitalism, because, again strictly-speaking, 'struggle' implies *class division* and the objective need for *class struggle* to usurp the hegemonic political economy -- capitalism.

The 'material factionalism' of a *post*-capitalist society would undoubtedly vary according to whatever material qualities that society *prioritized*, like 'economy', or 'full automation', or 'meaningful work', or whatever. (The four 'components' of the Social Production Worldview diagram would vary accordingly.)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1904/condel/conart.htm

So there will still be different views and people siding on one or the other.

Yeah, but the 'interpersonal' is decidedly distinct and different (in *scale*, I would argue), than the 'political', which is really a realm of its own, anyway (including the total and 'real' economies).


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show

Interpersonal Meanings

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

'material factionalism'

---

If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338