-Science is the world so far as it is willing to submit to our questioning, our standards of evidence, our demands for consistency, predictability, behavior according to a model, etc..

-Is there  anything rational about an event that couldn’t be entered into evidence? About a business relationship that couldn’t be put in a contract?

-Is everything visible tangible? Leaving off outlier cases, the answer is either (obviously) yes since the same things we see are things that could be touched or (obviously) no since it’s not as if blind men can’t feel or the anaesthetized go blind. All modes of knowledge are like this. From within the mode, nothing is left out, and everything can be reduced to an explanation in that mode (the visible can be wholly reduced to a tangible shape, like a wave.) So far as this goes, any mode of knowledge is the only or the best means we have of attaining reality.

-Tradition is hear-say: we heard from someone who heard from someone who heard, etc.


1 Comment

  1. obscure said,

    January 19, 2016 at 12:48 am

    There is, I think, an essential distinction to be made between convention and tradition:

    Convention is the agreement between two successive generations alone (at their point of contact i.e. conditioned by the circumstances of the moment); while tradition must involve both generations in a mutual subordination to some point in the past which was necessarily the manifestation of something trans-historical. The aim of both is coordination in time, but this is the most exact distinction to be made between the two.

    In the conventional transmission there is subordination to circumstances and the corresponding affections of arbitrary desire and material need felt at a particular moment in history; there is a tendency of the status of the former generation to degenerate since what they transmit is just the aggregate of accidents inherited from bygone generations; there is a basis here for a superficial and continual chain of conflict, deliberation and agreement. Whereas tradition renders respect as a necessary affection owed to the previous generation at least only insofar as they are nearer to the source; there is also a strong ground for conflict resolution through appealing to the absoluteness of the source; all modifications of the tradition are either instances of degeneration or intrinsic elaborations (everything rests here upon the free will); there is a clear consciousness of hierarchy being both immanent and transcendent and so a clear objectivity regarding the concept of hierarchy (thus an obvious respect for the reality of hierarchy).

    This specific distinction could be made more forcefully, especially insofar as the influence of Burke on Anglo-American conservatism has ensured some ambiguity regarding the relation between conventions and any tradition which would call itself sacred (and thus certainly set apart from all mere conventionality). Many points could be unfolded and the impossibility of adhering to a non-providentialist theory of history as one’s primary perspective could be made clear.

%d bloggers like this: