But itās hard to stay interested even if I am interested in the particular historical era they anchor on. Iām not interested in history in the same way as trads seem to be. Like being interested in how an obsolete old engine worked rather than the colors/styles of old cars.
Conversation
Thereās I think 3 ways of being interested in history:
1. Unironic Trad: how things were, what it was like to be there
2. Ironic trad: how things worked and why that was good/best
3. Philistinism: how things *could* work, given the existence proof of how things *did* work
3
1
14
For the longest time Iāve had a visual image of āhistoryā that sees the past as a single trajectory, the future as a garden of forking paths, and the present as a sort of š„ explosion-break-point computation for which the past is an input but not a constraint.
1
10
Every moment having revolutionary potential in a politically neutral sense, as in utterly unconstrained by the past that we imagine having a historicist shaping force on the future that necessarily must act, but... really doesnāt. And then breaks surprise us.
3
5
The necessity of historical continuity is almost entirely in our heads. Thatās a neutral operating assumption for me. Perpetuation of tradition is a choice. One that might have some Lindy merits going for it, but is never actually necessary.
1
3
11
But my sense is that trads see it as necessary in a way, almost like flirtation with discontinuous futures is an unrealistic childish affectation/fantasy that they set aside when they turn trad. I suspect it feels like āgrowing upā into a tragic adult posture.
1
1
12
Iām pretty much pure philistine in the Vonnegut sense. āHistory is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again.ā
3
2
18
Carse: āTo be prepared against surprise is to be trained. To be prepared for surprise is to be educated. Education discovers an increasing richness in the past, because it sees what is unfinished there. Training regards the past as finished and the future as to be finished.ā
1
1
17
The Carse version is a bit self-congratulatory, and I think his position is a bit more confused than Vonnegutās, due to wanting to square theology with future-positivity. Vonnegut was a shitposter. His philosophy was mostly juvenile but with some insights scattered throughout.
1
7
Unabashedly reactionary turns are in a way easier to deal with. My response is generally a straightforward opposition, since foundational axioms are so different. But trad turns make me slightly sad. I have the same reaction I do to friends retreating to deal with depression.
1
4
I can also sense that they, in their turn, view me as being irredeemably lost to moral weakness and corruption š¤£
Deep kind of divergence
Replying to
I am only talking about soul-searching trads for whom itās an end-point of a kind of spiritual quest/karma-trauma trekking. Not what I think of as āpolitical tradā which feels like a calculated act aimed at elevation to blue-checkery. Like straight actors playing gay roles.
1
4
I guess Iām thinking about this stuff because so many young people in their prime, like 20-35 seem to be turning trad, like 3x the % when I was that age.
Feels like a bit of a tragic waste, since 20-35 is when youāre most cognitively capable, of being āprepared for surpriseā
6
3
14
Iām mostly prepared against surprise at this point, but as a function of basic aging, not choice. It genuinely pisses me off that Iām no longer as prepared for surprise as I once was.
5
