“ The difference is that folkishness subordinates conscience in order to maximize obedience, whereas Axiality elevates conscience with the effect of maximizing disobedience.”
Conscience is easy in the land of peace and plenty. Which was why it first appeared in the settled lands of imperial India and powerful Athens, and not in the uncertain terrain of tribal Afghanistan where the strict obedience is required for survival. It would then become a habit of thought during the Christian age, but didn’t really become a thing until after the Wars of Religion.
“ Folkish apologetics explicitly accepts that biological inheritance is not a sufficient condition for identity. While we must never lose sight of the fact that it was exceptional, adoption of non-kindred male heirs into the family is found in most Indo-European branches, with the laws so similar between branches that we can plausibly reconstruct this as a Proto-Indo-European practice. Folkishness treats identity as nested and pre-political—family, then clan, tribe, folk, race—and treats command as specific to each of these relations.”
There are some limits. It seems that the adopted must bears some kind of distant kinship, at least within the Roman tradition. Plus, the custom of three generations seems to be common in which a family is moved from the status of freedman to freeborn to fullborn to gentry and finally to the noble status. Every step made by each’s grandson .So, a foreign blood is eventually assimilated into the native blood. Even with that, a man, bride, and slave still must be initiated into the family cult to be a part of the community.
“ The difference is that folkishness subordinates conscience in order to maximize obedience, whereas Axiality elevates conscience with the effect of maximizing disobedience.”
Conscience is easy in the land of peace and plenty. Which was why it first appeared in the settled lands of imperial India and powerful Athens, and not in the uncertain terrain of tribal Afghanistan where the strict obedience is required for survival. It would then become a habit of thought during the Christian age, but didn’t really become a thing until after the Wars of Religion.
Dude this is just getting bad enough that its hard to read.
“ Folkish apologetics explicitly accepts that biological inheritance is not a sufficient condition for identity. While we must never lose sight of the fact that it was exceptional, adoption of non-kindred male heirs into the family is found in most Indo-European branches, with the laws so similar between branches that we can plausibly reconstruct this as a Proto-Indo-European practice. Folkishness treats identity as nested and pre-political—family, then clan, tribe, folk, race—and treats command as specific to each of these relations.”
There are some limits. It seems that the adopted must bears some kind of distant kinship, at least within the Roman tradition. Plus, the custom of three generations seems to be common in which a family is moved from the status of freedman to freeborn to fullborn to gentry and finally to the noble status. Every step made by each’s grandson .So, a foreign blood is eventually assimilated into the native blood. Even with that, a man, bride, and slave still must be initiated into the family cult to be a part of the community.