Mike :
Any chance you can tell us more ?  On  no set schedule I carry  out searches
to see what others are saying about the idea of Radical Centrism, or what  
others
have said in the past. We are sort of groping our way toward a  functional
philosophy of RC. Actually we are further along than that, but as one  
aspect
of our quest.
 
I could not access the text of the article for which there only is the  
short reference
posted. But the issue of tradition, it seems clear, deserves some  
attention..
About which I have become sensitive because of some "new third way"  people
I now know, Europeans of the political New Right. For them, as you can  
guess,
tradition is a fundamental element of everything even if, in the 21st  
century,
their "take" on tradition is effectively Post-Modern.
 
Burke, of course, made much of tradition. The trouble with this, of course, 
 is that
there is no science involved, everything comes down to the equivalent  of
natural law philosophy. That is soft stuff ;  heck it  can be downright 
squishy.
Still, it is impossible to fail to see its importance.
 
But if one does argue on the basis of tradition, which tradition ?   Sure, 
in the early
1800s America revived the spirit of Jonathan Edwards' Great Awakening of  
more than
a half century before, but the Revolutionary era itself was dominated by  
Deist thinkers
or free thinkers best exemplified by Ben Franklin, or by sophisticated  
Anglicans,
and not by Baptists or Presbyterians or other Evangelicals.
 
So, what objective criteria does one use in deciding which tradition to use 
 for
your purposes ?  OR, how can we use the best of each of our  traditions
for modern purposes?  
 
A few thoughts on the subject.
 
 
Billy Rojas
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
message dated 8/25/2011 8:33:09 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[email protected] writes:

Coincidentally, I've lately been looking at the role of  "tradition"
being shifted toward institutionalized rules of action (based  on
empirical knowledge, natch), rather than set solid principles  (ie:
traditions as logical formulae as opposed to  one-size-fits-all
solutions).  Doing that creates some type of  flexible growth-oriented
conservatism.

On Aug 25, 11:18 am,  [email protected] wrote:
> faqs.org
>
> Post-traditional civil  society
> and the radical center
> Article Abstract :
> Many  political scientists have called for a sense of community within 
the  
> nation state. However, this sense of community within the civil  society 
is  
> inseparable from tradition. Tradition rarely leaves  room for innovations 
and
>  social change. To be able to effect  social change, there must be a
> willingness  to accept  individuation. Tradition often leads to cultural
> segmentation and  social disintegration. Community can only be effective 
if it
>  acknowledges  autonomy and democratization.
>
> Author:  Giddens, Anthony
> Publisher: Blackwell  Publishers Ltd.
>  Publication Name: New  Perspectives Quarterly
> Subject: Political  science
> ISSN: 0893-7850
> Year:  1998
>
>  Beliefs, opinions and  attitudes, Social structure, Giddens,  Anthony,
> Social scientists  

-- 
Centroids: The Center  of the Radical Centrist Community  
<[email protected]>
Google Group:  http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and  blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org


 

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to