Wonderfully articulate and balanced. This whole “dispute” between freedom/innovation and the structures preserved by conservatism is of course without resolution and without end, as it needs to be confronted and processed by every generation and every society. Curiously enough it reminds me of when I was writing for “Inside Kung Fu” magazine forty years ago, when the trail-blazing iconoclasm of Bruce Lee was tearing through established foundations of “traditional” martial arts – many of which were about as traditional as the oldest of the current teachers, rather than having any genuinely centuries- or millennia-old inherited forms of practice. I tried explaining that “structure” didn’t mean “imprisonment” – although a cage is a confining structure, a ladder is a liberating structure, for example. It gives you the freedom to climb to the roof for a wider perspective, and then you don’t throw the ladder away or you just prevent someone else from having the same advantages. This didn’t do me a lot of good, as the young martial artists of the time were so drunk on their adoration of Bruce Lee that something that sounded like “criticism” from a “nobody” could not get off the launching pad of discussion. I was just trying to get people to think, not to tear down their idol. It seems pretty clear to me, actually, that Bruce Lee and his Jeet Kune Do philosophy will, in cultural and historical terms, probably be rated as on a par with Miyamoto Musashi and the Book of Five Rings, centuries from now. And of course he had to be somewhat polemical in order to establish his freedom-and-expression-based ideas. He certainly would not have been too stupid to understand my viewpoint. (His successor Dan Inosanto, in a quietly genius way, has managed to respectfully preserve and promote both useful structures and an utterly liberated philosophy at the same time.) But it will be there forever, this unresolvable tension between the established and the innovative, the “traditional” and the “free”, whether you ever go anywhere near martial arts or not.
This can pretty much be summed by saying conservatism sees a viable society as the result of societal evolution, that numerous concepts and ideas are experimented with and the most viable trade offs are embraced, with others constrained. However as societies reach a tipping point where growth ends and decline begins, the progressives endeavor to destroy the framework that has made the society so successful. Much of this is due to their distain for history, which they view as too constraining and a lack of consequential knowledge; IOW their ignorance of history precludes them from understanding why such constraints were put into place to begin with, so in essence they de-evolve society back into the Chaos from which it evolved. The final reality is as Jesus said, there is nothing new under the sun. All has been tried, the good ideas (positive net trade-offs) become the accepted norm and the so called unconstrained new ideas are actually the bad ideas (negative net trade-offs) that historically failed, but the reason for their failure has been forgotten, until they are re- instituted and the net negative consequences reemerge.
“On the conservative view, traditions, like freedom, are instruments that are valuable only to the extent that they facilitate collective flourishing and consolidate social unity.” The next American Caesar could use that as his rallying cry. Hard pass from those of us that just want to be left alone from the authoritarian collectivists on either side of the political spectrum.
Wonderfully articulate and balanced. This whole “dispute” between freedom/innovation and the structures preserved by conservatism is of course without resolution and without end, as it needs to be confronted and processed by every generation and every society. Curiously enough it reminds me of when I was writing for “Inside Kung Fu” magazine forty years ago, when the trail-blazing iconoclasm of Bruce Lee was tearing through established foundations of “traditional” martial arts – many of which were about as traditional as the oldest of the current teachers, rather than having any genuinely centuries- or millennia-old inherited forms of practice. I tried explaining that “structure” didn’t mean “imprisonment” – although a cage is a confining structure, a ladder is a liberating structure, for example. It gives you the freedom to climb to the roof for a wider perspective, and then you don’t throw the ladder away or you just prevent someone else from having the same advantages. This didn’t do me a lot of good, as the young martial artists of the time were so drunk on their adoration of Bruce Lee that something that sounded like “criticism” from a “nobody” could not get off the launching pad of discussion. I was just trying to get people to think, not to tear down their idol. It seems pretty clear to me, actually, that Bruce Lee and his Jeet Kune Do philosophy will, in cultural and historical terms, probably be rated as on a par with Miyamoto Musashi and the Book of Five Rings, centuries from now. And of course he had to be somewhat polemical in order to establish his freedom-and-expression-based ideas. He certainly would not have been too stupid to understand my viewpoint. (His successor Dan Inosanto, in a quietly genius way, has managed to respectfully preserve and promote both useful structures and an utterly liberated philosophy at the same time.) But it will be there forever, this unresolvable tension between the established and the innovative, the “traditional” and the “free”, whether you ever go anywhere near martial arts or not.
This can pretty much be summed by saying conservatism sees a viable society as the result of societal evolution, that numerous concepts and ideas are experimented with and the most viable trade offs are embraced, with others constrained. However as societies reach a tipping point where growth ends and decline begins, the progressives endeavor to destroy the framework that has made the society so successful. Much of this is due to their distain for history, which they view as too constraining and a lack of consequential knowledge; IOW their ignorance of history precludes them from understanding why such constraints were put into place to begin with, so in essence they de-evolve society back into the Chaos from which it evolved. The final reality is as Jesus said, there is nothing new under the sun. All has been tried, the good ideas (positive net trade-offs) become the accepted norm and the so called unconstrained new ideas are actually the bad ideas (negative net trade-offs) that historically failed, but the reason for their failure has been forgotten, until they are re- instituted and the net negative consequences reemerge.
“On the conservative view, traditions, like freedom, are instruments that are valuable only to the extent that they facilitate collective flourishing and consolidate social unity.” The next American Caesar could use that as his rallying cry. Hard pass from those of us that just want to be left alone from the authoritarian collectivists on either side of the political spectrum.
Dr Orr takes the point here, excellent, truly excellent.
Konstantin, thank you for facilitating this!
Was listening to it on my way to the debate last night.
M