You missed a top line word in my thesis—Possibility. There is no alchemy there, only a formulaic breakdown of the elements of what it might take. In conclusion, the possibility of what human choice and enterprise in our new world of ‘advancements’ might be.
You are right, of the group I am the benign one, merely setting up a historic review of Pressures and their resulting Possibilities. I’m not placing any bets.
I responded to the restack comment, I think, rather than this one, but I'll add that there's nothing obviously historical about your formula, or at least none that I can see, and the foreseeable problem it seems to me is that if you use so rigid a formula then it becomes easy to, for example, jettison the Aristotelian tradition from view for similar reasons as those that Kristeller offers. None of this is in itself a problem for me personally. As you mention, I'm more concerned with Walker and Fideler, who present themselves as authorities on the Renaissance, and sell people on it.
You are a diligent debater—I like that! Yes I mention in the Notes reply to you about my formula— which has pinched your discomfort.
Let’s start with the fact I open that section by saying “If we express the MODERN renaissance as a mathematical style relationship…” because we are talking about how to assess what may come next.
Conditions accounted for either all contribute in one direction or start to detract. Using what has happened to create a formula for what could happen is one of the greatest leaps of humankind.
Aristotle concerns himself with why a thing becomes what it is, acting within a bounded system. My formula concerns when conditions allow the many acts of becoming to occur at scale.
Furthermore, Aristotle sees Pressure as providing Potential, requiring proper conditions to move toward actuality. My formula maps this precisely, not negating, but rather extending. While Aristotle explains how forms change, he does not explain why entire cultures do simultaneously. I wouldn’t expect him to. The current modern-day network effects, transmission velocity and institutional drag were not structurally able to be accounted for at his time.
There is nothing metaphysical here. I am all structural, actually relying upon his framework and supplementing it.
Alright--I'll respond, and you can decide whether to respond, in turn.
If I understand what you're saying, culture has within it the potential to become a renaissance. A renaissance is the actuality of this potential, and the end (telos) of culture. Is "possibility" used to denote actuality (energeia)? I'm confused because that word seems more appropriate to potential (dynamis). I'm also confused by what you mean by culture. Nietzsche, for example, writes about culture as a unity of artistic practices. That's something stable enough to talk about in terms of actuality and teleology. What is the substance of culture?
Of the theorists I write about in the post, most of them are concerned with material practices. Nancy Struever, who I quote several times, finds in humanism "natural operations" of language (moving vocal chords, physically composing written signs, etc.). Language then has the potential for eloquence through the aid of rhetoric. Similarly, Habermas seems to think that we have a potential for rational communication through the aid of consensus and Lyotard for authentic speech acts through the aid of dissensus. I'm new to Habermas and Lyotard so that may not be correct. James Hankins seems to think that the humanists based stability in morality, which has the potential for virtuous citizenship through the aid of education. I think the issue with Hankins, which I write about in the post, is that it isn't clear what the process of actualizing virtuous citizenship would look like in practice.
When you wrote about Durer's influence on print, I figured you were moving in the direction of arguing a defining practice of the Northern Renaissance. Printing, writing, education, etc., all seem to provide durable materia informed by ends. As with culture, I'm not sure what you mean by renaissance. I'm happy to continue discussing this, but I want to make sure I understand you first.
You are quite hysterical. I enjoy this greatly.
You missed a top line word in my thesis—Possibility. There is no alchemy there, only a formulaic breakdown of the elements of what it might take. In conclusion, the possibility of what human choice and enterprise in our new world of ‘advancements’ might be.
You are right, of the group I am the benign one, merely setting up a historic review of Pressures and their resulting Possibilities. I’m not placing any bets.
Thanks for the traction! 😉
I responded to the restack comment, I think, rather than this one, but I'll add that there's nothing obviously historical about your formula, or at least none that I can see, and the foreseeable problem it seems to me is that if you use so rigid a formula then it becomes easy to, for example, jettison the Aristotelian tradition from view for similar reasons as those that Kristeller offers. None of this is in itself a problem for me personally. As you mention, I'm more concerned with Walker and Fideler, who present themselves as authorities on the Renaissance, and sell people on it.
You are a diligent debater—I like that! Yes I mention in the Notes reply to you about my formula— which has pinched your discomfort.
Let’s start with the fact I open that section by saying “If we express the MODERN renaissance as a mathematical style relationship…” because we are talking about how to assess what may come next.
Conditions accounted for either all contribute in one direction or start to detract. Using what has happened to create a formula for what could happen is one of the greatest leaps of humankind.
Aristotle concerns himself with why a thing becomes what it is, acting within a bounded system. My formula concerns when conditions allow the many acts of becoming to occur at scale.
Furthermore, Aristotle sees Pressure as providing Potential, requiring proper conditions to move toward actuality. My formula maps this precisely, not negating, but rather extending. While Aristotle explains how forms change, he does not explain why entire cultures do simultaneously. I wouldn’t expect him to. The current modern-day network effects, transmission velocity and institutional drag were not structurally able to be accounted for at his time.
There is nothing metaphysical here. I am all structural, actually relying upon his framework and supplementing it.
Thank you again for such a rigorous discussion!
Apologies but I can't respond to this right away. I'll have to wait until tomorrow.
No response needed—we’re good. Enjoy your weekend!
Alright--I'll respond, and you can decide whether to respond, in turn.
If I understand what you're saying, culture has within it the potential to become a renaissance. A renaissance is the actuality of this potential, and the end (telos) of culture. Is "possibility" used to denote actuality (energeia)? I'm confused because that word seems more appropriate to potential (dynamis). I'm also confused by what you mean by culture. Nietzsche, for example, writes about culture as a unity of artistic practices. That's something stable enough to talk about in terms of actuality and teleology. What is the substance of culture?
Of the theorists I write about in the post, most of them are concerned with material practices. Nancy Struever, who I quote several times, finds in humanism "natural operations" of language (moving vocal chords, physically composing written signs, etc.). Language then has the potential for eloquence through the aid of rhetoric. Similarly, Habermas seems to think that we have a potential for rational communication through the aid of consensus and Lyotard for authentic speech acts through the aid of dissensus. I'm new to Habermas and Lyotard so that may not be correct. James Hankins seems to think that the humanists based stability in morality, which has the potential for virtuous citizenship through the aid of education. I think the issue with Hankins, which I write about in the post, is that it isn't clear what the process of actualizing virtuous citizenship would look like in practice.
When you wrote about Durer's influence on print, I figured you were moving in the direction of arguing a defining practice of the Northern Renaissance. Printing, writing, education, etc., all seem to provide durable materia informed by ends. As with culture, I'm not sure what you mean by renaissance. I'm happy to continue discussing this, but I want to make sure I understand you first.