Comments on: The Forces Of Reaction http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:40:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5156 Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:32:49 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5156 Thanks to all for your comments. My apologies in responding to them slowly. I have been recovering from a cold this week (perhaps that explains the number of unusually bad mental lapses on my part!), and I have been a-blogging steadily during my convalescene so my responding to comments has fallen behind. Thanks to Mr. Poulos for the clarification. Fighting le trahsion des clercs is indeed a worthy activity, and on that point I think we have far, far less to quarrel about than in any of the other areas (though I suspect we may not really be quarreling about it as intensely as it seems we are). Jeff, you wrote: "You say this in the context of how we should live within a family and community, and you go on to talk about this idea using the example of the parish church. But what struck me right away when I read that sentence is my experience of marriage over the past (almost) nine years! Dealing with my wife and raising children often impose burdens on me that sometimes cause me to (mentally) wish I could run away from it all. But I quickly come to my senses, for all the good conservative reasons you would appreciate. Perhaps marriage and family could become the one key link between us neo-cons and paleos that will lead to the dawning of Eunomia in America? Ross and Reihan have hinted at this new fusion of ideas with some of their pro-natalist policy ideas they think should be adopted by the Republican Party (and I heartily endorse)." Indeed, marriage as an example of this same need to embrace the burdens of responsibility was in my mind as I was writing these lines. Marriage, understood rightly, is in many ways the highest earthly image of self-sacrificing relationship and the acceptance of joyful burdens. It seems (I say this as one unmarried) an excellent example of a relationship and an institution where we are required often to give of ourselves what we would rather not give, but in the act of empting ourselves for others we find precisely the source of a full, humane life. I don't know whether it could become the link that would bring us all together into common cause, but family and marriage are among the fundamental things that I think that all self-respecting conservatives take as being the most important things to conserve and protect in the understanding that when these are weakened all other goods that we seek are turned to ashes. We should be able to rally around some set of pro-natalist policies. Thanks to all for your comments. My apologies in responding to them slowly. I have been recovering from a cold this week (perhaps that explains the number of unusually bad mental lapses on my part!), and I have been a-blogging steadily during my convalescene so my responding to comments has fallen behind.

Thanks to Mr. Poulos for the clarification. Fighting le trahsion des clercs is indeed a worthy activity, and on that point I think we have far, far less to quarrel about than in any of the other areas (though I suspect we may not really be quarreling about it as intensely as it seems we are).

Jeff, you wrote:

“You say this in the context of how we should live within a family and community, and you go on to talk about this idea using the example of the parish church. But what struck me right away when I read that sentence is my experience of marriage over the past (almost) nine years! Dealing with my wife and raising children often impose burdens on me that sometimes cause me to (mentally) wish I could run away from it all. But I quickly come to my senses, for all the good conservative reasons you would appreciate. Perhaps marriage and family could become the one key link between us neo-cons and paleos that will lead to the dawning of Eunomia in America? Ross and Reihan have hinted at this new fusion of ideas with some of their pro-natalist policy ideas they think should be adopted by the Republican Party (and I heartily endorse).”

Indeed, marriage as an example of this same need to embrace the burdens of responsibility was in my mind as I was writing these lines. Marriage, understood rightly, is in many ways the highest earthly image of self-sacrificing relationship and the acceptance of joyful burdens. It seems (I say this as one unmarried) an excellent example of a relationship and an institution where we are required often to give of ourselves what we would rather not give, but in the act of empting ourselves for others we find precisely the source of a full, humane life. I don’t know whether it could become the link that would bring us all together into common cause, but family and marriage are among the fundamental things that I think that all self-respecting conservatives take as being the most important things to conserve and protect in the understanding that when these are weakened all other goods that we seek are turned to ashes. We should be able to rally around some set of pro-natalist policies.

]]> by: empiricus http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5145 Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:43:46 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5145 Well, then thirty eight lashes with a wet noodle for you as well, Mr. Poulos (although I thank you most heartily for your article, and I thank you, Daniel, for linking to it. Of course, now I must keep up with reading PomoCo as well, for which both of you must bear the karmic burden). I think it's clear that Wordsworth definitely intended the term in contradistinction to the clergy, but it appears to have undergone semantic shift since, to cover the intelligentsia in toto (including clergy but not as specially privileged interpeters). On the other hand, the term suggests if not connotes a definitive (though not inherently dogmatic) interpretive community/class (again potentially including clergy) which, I suggest, is a non-existent entity at the national level post WW1 at any rate. Also for argumentative precision, _I_ assumed that you were using "clerisy" in a Wordsworthian sense (i.e. predominantly secular), so I shall, in best Seventh Seal/Monty Python fashion, apply the noodleiferous scourge to myself as well. Well, then thirty eight lashes with a wet noodle for you as well, Mr. Poulos (although I thank you most heartily for your article, and I thank you, Daniel, for linking to it. Of course, now I must keep up with reading PomoCo as well, for which both of you must bear the karmic burden).

I think it’s clear that Wordsworth definitely intended the term in contradistinction to the clergy, but it appears to have undergone semantic shift since, to cover the intelligentsia in toto (including clergy but not as specially privileged interpeters). On the other hand, the term suggests if not connotes a definitive (though not inherently dogmatic) interpretive community/class (again potentially including clergy) which, I suggest, is a non-existent entity at the national level post WW1 at any rate.

Also for argumentative precision, _I_ assumed that you were using “clerisy” in a Wordsworthian sense (i.e. predominantly secular), so I shall, in best Seventh Seal/Monty Python fashion, apply the noodleiferous scourge to myself as well.

]]> by: James G. Poulos http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5143 Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:17:01 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5143 And here was I, thinking "clerisy" indicated both the secular and clerical dogmatist classes! For the sake of argumentative precision, I confess. Larison was meant to have run with it. But broadly the beating-back indeed applies to both. Bureaucratized faith thrives far beyond the tree line of religion. If only this type of conservatism had functioned in Germany, where clerisy of every type fantastically failed the very civilization it propelled to the heights. Only Weber really came close when it counted. And even he was dangerously off on charismatics. Again I urge some other grad student to write their dissertation on the generational snap between minister fathers and their philosopher sons. And here was I, thinking “clerisy” indicated both the secular and clerical dogmatist classes! For the sake of argumentative precision, I confess. Larison was meant to have run with it. But broadly the beating-back indeed applies to both. Bureaucratized faith thrives far beyond the tree line of religion. If only this type of conservatism had functioned in Germany, where clerisy of every type fantastically failed the very civilization it propelled to the heights. Only Weber really came close when it counted. And even he was dangerously off on charismatics. Again I urge some other grad student to write their dissertation on the generational snap between minister fathers and their philosopher sons.

]]> by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5139 Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:45:43 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5139 No offense taken. As it happens, apparently I didn't know what the word meant. Whoops. That's rather embarrassing. When I run across words where I'm unsure, I will normally check them, but this time I just ran with it. I saw the cleri- root and assumed that the word was connected to something to do with clergy, and I just assumed I knew what it meant. Etymologically, as I have since discovered, clerisy <em>is</em> derived from clericus, but it has obviously been stripped of any religious connotations. Obviously, I was badly, badly mistaken on that part, and I apologise for the error. The offending section has been removed, and I am suitably humbled by my rather large gaffe. No offense taken. As it happens, apparently I didn’t know what the word meant. Whoops. That’s rather embarrassing. When I run across words where I’m unsure, I will normally check them, but this time I just ran with it. I saw the cleri- root and assumed that the word was connected to something to do with clergy, and I just assumed I knew what it meant. Etymologically, as I have since discovered, clerisy is derived from clericus, but it has obviously been stripped of any religious connotations. Obviously, I was badly, badly mistaken on that part, and I apologise for the error. The offending section has been removed, and I am suitably humbled by my rather large gaffe.

]]> by: jsinger008 http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5138 Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:50:25 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5138 It is a shame Father Neuhaus beat you to the name "First Things", as lately this blog (to its everlasting credit for those of us who hunger for intellectual adventure) has devoted a lot of pixels to the important questions of how we should order (shout out to "Eunomia") our lives. I think this post begins to answer the question I posed back in the "Pottage" post, but rather than undertake a careful analysis of this question/answer, instead I wanted to comment on this wise observation: "What we should not do is what many of us would like to do, and what all of us are tempted to do, which is to give up on something because it imposes burdens on us and requires things of us that we are not always wanting to give." You say this in the context of how we should live within a family and community, and you go on to talk about this idea using the example of the parish church. But what struck me right away when I read that sentence is my experience of marriage over the past (almost) nine years! Dealing with my wife and raising children often impose burdens on me that sometimes cause me to (mentally) wish I could run away from it all. But I quickly come to my senses, for all the good conservative reasons you would appreciate. Perhaps marriage and family could become the one key link between us neo-cons and paleos that will lead to the dawning of Eunomia in America? Ross and Reihan have hinted at this new fusion of ideas with some of their pro-natalist policy ideas they think should be adopted by the Republican Party (and I heartily endorse). It is a shame Father Neuhaus beat you to the name “First Things”, as lately this blog (to its everlasting credit for those of us who hunger for intellectual adventure) has devoted a lot of pixels to the important questions of how we should order (shout out to “Eunomia”) our lives.

I think this post begins to answer the question I posed back in the “Pottage” post, but rather than undertake a careful analysis of this question/answer, instead I wanted to comment on this wise observation:

“What we should not do is what many of us would like to do, and what all of us are tempted to do, which is to give up on something because it imposes burdens on us and requires things of us that we are not always wanting to give.”

You say this in the context of how we should live within a family and community, and you go on to talk about this idea using the example of the parish church. But what struck me right away when I read that sentence is my experience of marriage over the past (almost) nine years! Dealing with my wife and raising children often impose burdens on me that sometimes cause me to (mentally) wish I could run away from it all. But I quickly come to my senses, for all the good conservative reasons you would appreciate. Perhaps marriage and family could become the one key link between us neo-cons and paleos that will lead to the dawning of Eunomia in America? Ross and Reihan have hinted at this new fusion of ideas with some of their pro-natalist policy ideas they think should be adopted by the Republican Party (and I heartily endorse).

]]> by: empiricus http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5137 Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:49:14 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/11/28/the-forces-of-reaction/#comment-5137 Uh, Daniel, I really don't mean this insultingly, but do you know what "clerisy" means? Your post reads to me as if you think it has something to do with clergy or clericalism or some such. At any rate, I have no idea how to read the sentence "This was the work of European-style liberals and radicals" otherwise. http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2001/10/03.html [it's Wordsworth who AFAIK coined the word in its modern sense - I don't have a real dictionary at hand to prove that it really was Wordsworth] Uh, Daniel, I really don’t mean this insultingly, but do you know what “clerisy” means? Your post reads to me as if you think it has something to do with clergy or clericalism or some such. At any rate, I have no idea how to read the sentence “This was the work of European-style liberals and radicals” otherwise.

http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2001/10/03.html

[it’s Wordsworth who AFAIK coined the word in its modern sense - I don’t have a real dictionary at hand to prove that it really was Wordsworth]

]]>