Tradition vs. Orthodoxy

[Bugbear]

Good luck, Chirs, it's been an interesting discussion. I want to reiterate, if you are going to use Darwinian-evolution concepts to analyze tradition, you must identify the most basic elements that are self-replicating; in other words, each aspect of the tradition that has the potential to change or be selected against each time it is repeated or passed on. This would even be if you believe a tradition must be repeated in whole and very precisely to be a tradition, like reciting an oath.

It helps, when thinking in Darwinian terms, to developed the discipline to always return your line of thinking back to these basic elements because each time something reproduces, each basic element, like a gene or meme, is being selected for or against. It also helps you find your way through the complexity; for example, in a system, if a part is removed that causes the system to fail to reproduce, it shows you that there are other parts that have probably co-evolved to require the missing part. And... I will cite Dawkins's, Selfish Gene, revised version, for all that.

Jock once told me that if one does not wear a sporran with a kilt, to him, it is not a kilt. That shows me that the tradition that was copied into Jock's head has the elements kilt and sporran, and they have co-evolved to be required together in this tradition; not that a kilt and the sporran are a single unit of replication, as it would almost appear from his statement. I hope that subtle point is coming across because I have seen many statements that seem to say a tradition, however complex, is a single unit of replication.

Essentially it is hierarchical reduction; not to be confused in any way with the fallacy of Reductionism BTW.