To be fair, I was the one who made the analogy between tradition and heirloom sourdough starters (extrapolating on comments by the symbolic world crowd). But your addition to the analogy is welcome.
My only pushback is that, even if it is a scam, people seem to want it for some reason. Someone sent me a link to a video detailing the ritual around keeping the leaven alive for Eucharist bread. I think it’s worth considering, at the very least, what psychological need this fulfills.
ah! then i misread it. but it's still poetic, and seems like something those two would say. and it's still quite apt anyway even if they haven't said it.
as for it being a psychic need: sure, it can be. but so can a bunch of bad things. is lying to oneself good? i don't think so.
that takes nothing from the practice of keeping the starter for the eucharist alive. but it is quite important, in symbolic terms, that it is NOT the same as it was, and in fact, it's always different. i think that makes it more valuable, but it goes against the very idea of traditionalism, which is that it's something 'unchanged'. the value is that it IS always changing.
Everyone does sourdough nowadays. Liberal, conservative, men, women, old and young. As if there were no other breads besides it, the one only bread. The bread of breads.
Now even you, Mr. Mormon Jazz Atlanticist, are doing sourdough. Well I think you should be a brioche person. Very niche. Has eggs. Works wonderfully as a hamburger bun.
Oh, and Harsh atheism born of a broken heart would be a great track title on a metal album. Maybe in the next life I'll have some musical talent, and will write a song. I'll commemorate you if I do.
1) Many conversions were compulsory, do-or-die. That's real trad!
2) In fairness, I think it's always been about the ritual. That may be the one continuity. But now our rituals are senseless and largely pretend; in the past, the elements of a ritual meant something and had even a scientific or evidential effect on people's state!
i disagree, etymologically speaking. rite comes from the same root as reason. thus only we truly have rites, because we are conscious of them. our ancestors did them unconsciously, which if we used words properly meant, they weren’t really rites (except perhaps for the priests/shamans). which is why in fact the rites were performed by experts only, most of the time.
Why should we allow our definitions of things to equate to what they are? That is, doing them unconsciously is still doing them. It’s seen in Christianity: what you believe basically doesn’t matter (and you may not agree here); what matters is your participation in church. Nothing you believe or disbelieve changes the fact that you kneel, the fact of what your body does, where it is, what it participates in, what you hear and smell - this all does accrue in the unconscious. The participation is the key, imo. And the conscious aspect of it occurs after the fact, upon reflection. It is another layer just as consciousness itself is another layer from unconsciousness.
Imo only certain types of people can perform rituals/be channels, if the rituals are to actually connect to a true source. And, is it not possible that reason may mean the reason for the rite? Someone’s premeditation of the rite itself.
i don't equate them. definitions are either useful or not. to me it's useful that we have a history of definitions through etymology. certainly whoever named something had an idea in mind. so i pay attention to that.
i ofc disagree that it doesn't matter what we believe. maybe for other religions. but not for what Jesus was getting at. it's important to be conscious of what it is we believe, because that influences the WHY of our loves.
thus only then, after becoming conscious, is the rite a true rite. in fact, that is my definition: a rite is a fully conscious act. hard to do of course. but that's why in the past it was priests and shamans only, they were more conscious. now the distinction doesn't appear to exist. priests and shamans are no more conscious than everyone else. the variations happen at other levels. and i would even say that becoming a priest or a shaman or whatever, involves a suppression of consciousness now, so it's even worse than it being the same. it's less in their case, almost by necessity, and exceptions notwishstanding.
Less prefrontal consciousness certainly (in their suppression), but they’re always people who live in the unconscious.
Last point I’ll argue (lol) is that you never could have had Christian nations through belief only - also takes law and physical participation. Btu ofc you couldn’t have had it without belief, either…
oh absolutely. no argument from me. in fact, i've said this many times. Jesus had no interest at all in 'christian nations'. in his conception, it's an oxymoron, because only individuals count.
I think I forgot that anyhow you are prob operating in a more Mormon idea of what "spiritual" means. But what I was feeling was... even though my traditional liturgy is manifestly something completely new (and getting newer with all these young guys arriving), it's also truly and physically/materially something very old, which I love. To the point that even when it annoys me in so many ways I can't give it up...
the specific acts may indeed be very old, i agree. the bread making precedes the incarnation millennia i believe. but that's not what the claims are about ofc.
that's too harsh (for your case). as i said the other day, you are well aware and live well with doubt. but many young guys don't. and if you cling so strongly to certainty (which can never actually be had in our present state), the downfall will be tragic.
my point (which i guess is covered by that idiom from Jesus too) is only about consciousness, and how important it is to understand that we are not like our ancestors, and shouldn't want to be. and that otherwise it will lead to very dark things (it's already doing so, as you know). the blowback will not be pretty.
that is not what i meant. it is more or less clear to me that consciousness has changed throughout history (not always in a straight line, and everywhere the same, but still the case), akin to how a child becomes an adolescent becomes an adult. we are more self conscious than our ancestors (even as recently as a century ago, when mass movements like communism or fascism still had any effect; they don’t seem to anymore). we don’t have the natural whimsicalness of the medievals or a small child (and consequently we are less collective minded, more individual). there are good and bad things about this, as about everything. but it is pretty clear to me that it’s the case. and we should embrace it, rather than pretend we can be children again. to be childlike is one thing, to be a child again quite another.
i agree, but: 1) not me. and not you. and not a bunch of other people. and 2) tik tok and AI are sending humanity to a postilterate age of purely imagistic symbolic thinking. but it's post literate. it's not preliterate. it's not exactly medieval consciousness, it's just a deformed version of modern consciousness.
i’m offended. i am very traditional as evidenced by the all-wooden comb i just used. made in china, i got it on amazon, i can send you the link
To be fair, I was the one who made the analogy between tradition and heirloom sourdough starters (extrapolating on comments by the symbolic world crowd). But your addition to the analogy is welcome.
My only pushback is that, even if it is a scam, people seem to want it for some reason. Someone sent me a link to a video detailing the ritual around keeping the leaven alive for Eucharist bread. I think it’s worth considering, at the very least, what psychological need this fulfills.
ah! then i misread it. but it's still poetic, and seems like something those two would say. and it's still quite apt anyway even if they haven't said it.
as for it being a psychic need: sure, it can be. but so can a bunch of bad things. is lying to oneself good? i don't think so.
that takes nothing from the practice of keeping the starter for the eucharist alive. but it is quite important, in symbolic terms, that it is NOT the same as it was, and in fact, it's always different. i think that makes it more valuable, but it goes against the very idea of traditionalism, which is that it's something 'unchanged'. the value is that it IS always changing.
Everyone does sourdough nowadays. Liberal, conservative, men, women, old and young. As if there were no other breads besides it, the one only bread. The bread of breads.
Now even you, Mr. Mormon Jazz Atlanticist, are doing sourdough. Well I think you should be a brioche person. Very niche. Has eggs. Works wonderfully as a hamburger bun.
Oh, and Harsh atheism born of a broken heart would be a great track title on a metal album. Maybe in the next life I'll have some musical talent, and will write a song. I'll commemorate you if I do.
actually it’s my wife who makes the bread. i only elaborate on the associated cosmology :D
Enjoyed this, two comments:
1) Many conversions were compulsory, do-or-die. That's real trad!
2) In fairness, I think it's always been about the ritual. That may be the one continuity. But now our rituals are senseless and largely pretend; in the past, the elements of a ritual meant something and had even a scientific or evidential effect on people's state!
i disagree, etymologically speaking. rite comes from the same root as reason. thus only we truly have rites, because we are conscious of them. our ancestors did them unconsciously, which if we used words properly meant, they weren’t really rites (except perhaps for the priests/shamans). which is why in fact the rites were performed by experts only, most of the time.
Why should we allow our definitions of things to equate to what they are? That is, doing them unconsciously is still doing them. It’s seen in Christianity: what you believe basically doesn’t matter (and you may not agree here); what matters is your participation in church. Nothing you believe or disbelieve changes the fact that you kneel, the fact of what your body does, where it is, what it participates in, what you hear and smell - this all does accrue in the unconscious. The participation is the key, imo. And the conscious aspect of it occurs after the fact, upon reflection. It is another layer just as consciousness itself is another layer from unconsciousness.
Imo only certain types of people can perform rituals/be channels, if the rituals are to actually connect to a true source. And, is it not possible that reason may mean the reason for the rite? Someone’s premeditation of the rite itself.
i don't equate them. definitions are either useful or not. to me it's useful that we have a history of definitions through etymology. certainly whoever named something had an idea in mind. so i pay attention to that.
i ofc disagree that it doesn't matter what we believe. maybe for other religions. but not for what Jesus was getting at. it's important to be conscious of what it is we believe, because that influences the WHY of our loves.
thus only then, after becoming conscious, is the rite a true rite. in fact, that is my definition: a rite is a fully conscious act. hard to do of course. but that's why in the past it was priests and shamans only, they were more conscious. now the distinction doesn't appear to exist. priests and shamans are no more conscious than everyone else. the variations happen at other levels. and i would even say that becoming a priest or a shaman or whatever, involves a suppression of consciousness now, so it's even worse than it being the same. it's less in their case, almost by necessity, and exceptions notwishstanding.
Less prefrontal consciousness certainly (in their suppression), but they’re always people who live in the unconscious.
Last point I’ll argue (lol) is that you never could have had Christian nations through belief only - also takes law and physical participation. Btu ofc you couldn’t have had it without belief, either…
oh absolutely. no argument from me. in fact, i've said this many times. Jesus had no interest at all in 'christian nations'. in his conception, it's an oxymoron, because only individuals count.
Surely not NO connection, and not a merely spiritual connection... we can recognize both continuity and novelty in the world!
if not merely a spiritual connection (which, imo, is something good and valuable, if understood correctly) then what?
I think I forgot that anyhow you are prob operating in a more Mormon idea of what "spiritual" means. But what I was feeling was... even though my traditional liturgy is manifestly something completely new (and getting newer with all these young guys arriving), it's also truly and physically/materially something very old, which I love. To the point that even when it annoys me in so many ways I can't give it up...
the specific acts may indeed be very old, i agree. the bread making precedes the incarnation millennia i believe. but that's not what the claims are about ofc.
I guess my happy place is old wine in new wineskins LOL
that's too harsh (for your case). as i said the other day, you are well aware and live well with doubt. but many young guys don't. and if you cling so strongly to certainty (which can never actually be had in our present state), the downfall will be tragic.
my point (which i guess is covered by that idiom from Jesus too) is only about consciousness, and how important it is to understand that we are not like our ancestors, and shouldn't want to be. and that otherwise it will lead to very dark things (it's already doing so, as you know). the blowback will not be pretty.
Yes, the attempt will end with (is currently creating) weird, dark stuff
i don’t know the future. but it might be. my post was mostly about consciousness. and it would be sad if it was to go backward, rather than forward.
that is not what i meant. it is more or less clear to me that consciousness has changed throughout history (not always in a straight line, and everywhere the same, but still the case), akin to how a child becomes an adolescent becomes an adult. we are more self conscious than our ancestors (even as recently as a century ago, when mass movements like communism or fascism still had any effect; they don’t seem to anymore). we don’t have the natural whimsicalness of the medievals or a small child (and consequently we are less collective minded, more individual). there are good and bad things about this, as about everything. but it is pretty clear to me that it’s the case. and we should embrace it, rather than pretend we can be children again. to be childlike is one thing, to be a child again quite another.
i agree, but: 1) not me. and not you. and not a bunch of other people. and 2) tik tok and AI are sending humanity to a postilterate age of purely imagistic symbolic thinking. but it's post literate. it's not preliterate. it's not exactly medieval consciousness, it's just a deformed version of modern consciousness.