[lit-ideas] Re: Tradition sedition
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:16:30 -0800
Mike
I discussed "tradition," what I meant by it, why I have been dwelling upon
it recently, and provided some examples after pointing out that Heidegger
never provided any (for his "place of authentication" which I have
Anglicized to "tradition") and Kundera never provided any. In fact there
was a recent discussion over one specific element of "tradition" aka
"values," the fellows who were claiming military honor without having been
in the service and whether that "devalued" or participated in the process of
disintegration this particular value.
Bear in mind I am starting from Heidegger's "place of Authentication." He
didn't like the word "tradition" because it can so easily be used by
detractors to mean something like you suggest in your note. I did associate
my word "tradition" with Heidegger's "place of authentication" several times
but then left off.
For Heidegger each ethnicity would have its own "traditions," qualities,
histories, memories, that would provide authentication if they were
embraced. This "place of authentication" is also Heidegger's "dasein," or
"being." When we fall away from "being" we also fall away from being
authentic.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 12:45 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Tradition sedition
Lawrence's hankering after social-cultural-ethical stability is imminently
understandable. It's the hankering after self-affirmation. We each
believe, to varying degrees, ourselves to be the repository of truth and
purpose and propriety. Upper-upper class or lower-lower class, all believe
their standards are THE standards. But variance in the social codes seems
to inflame the Upper far more that the Lower classes. Why? Well, bbecause
the Upper have far more to lose than the lower by social change. I don't
know, but I suspect that the lower classes feel little threatened by social
change -- if indeed they're ever even aware of it going on. The threats
they face daily are economic survival, not philosophical. But to the Upper,
witnessing the flaunting of social customs and mores is an assault upon the
premises they have built their lives upon.
Lawrence keeps harking back to "tradition" as if it were something sacred.
I've always taken tradition to mean repeated behaviors. Every family has
it's traditions -- how holidays, how Christmas and birthdays and
anniversaries and etc. are observed -- and marriage usually results in a
melding of traditions -- i.e. comprises -- i.e. changes the traditions of
each. Lawrence doesn't spell out what "tradition" means to him. I wish he
would. I assume he means behaviors. Mardi Gras is a tradition, the Bull
Run in Paloma is a tradition, the whole Catholic Church calender of rituals
is tradition, Wild drunken wedding receptions could be a tradition. Hiring
a prostitute on Tuesdays could be a tradition. Whatever behaviors are
repeated -- especially rotely -- that's tradition to me.
It all ends in ashes. Don't work yourself up over it, is my advise.
Mike Geary
Memphis
Other related posts:
