Tradition vs. Orthodoxy

[DWFII]

Yes, it is very true that a fish is not a mammal. I am really not arguing with the traditional view point being expressed. If we are going to put this in evolutionary terms, let us, please, express things properly.

It is the genome associated with fish that evolved into the genome of mammals. The Phenotypic expression of those genes are, more or less, the vehicles of the genes.
Genes jump species all the time via bacteria etc, sometimes different species do combine into a new species (genomic shock) and so on. We splice fish genes into the genome of tomatoes, and spider silk genes into goat genomes. If the jumping gene finds a comfortable home in it's new genome,to anthropomorphize it a bit, it can become a mutation that is passed on. And of course if the gene causes problems that prevent the genome from being passed on, that is the negative side of natural selection.

I want to make it clear, again, that I am not trying to argue fashion is tradition, or against the traditionalists. The concept of the kilt has basic elements that we keep in our minds and extra-somatic memory, such as Barb's kilt book. These are like the genome of the kilt that gets passed from generation to generation, or person to person. An element of fashion can make it's way into this kilt genome and begin to be passed on. If it sticks, I would assume it is a tradition, like the adoption of knife rather than box pleats. We play the role of natural selection in this case, though it is fairly deliberate and willful.

I have experienced, first hand, that the traditionalists of this forum do not agree on some details of what is and is not traditional, as well as, what are and are not acceptable elements of traditional Highland attire. To me the true battle of the traditional kilt genome is playing out in the heads of the traditionalists, and much less the heads of the modernists.

That was a good post. I agree with most of it. Let me say before continuing, however, that I am not a scientist or biologist...I don't have your obvious expertise, in other words.

But, that said, I seriously doubt that putting a fish gene in a tomato creates a salmon. Or a scaled Early Girl. By any stretch of the imagination. And if it does, it becomes something else simply by virtue of not being able to breed with the original. Not being able to pass the original set of genes on to the next generation.

And yes, the true battle of the Traditional kilt genome is in the heads of the Traditionalists--I suspect they are the only ones who respect the Traditions enough to care.

Anytime a person has to redefine the parameters of issue...ie. "(re)-define Traditional"...you have to know that the basic assumptions and understandings and conventions and history and such, are not regarded with the same respect as they may be entitled to.

(Re)-defining is the same as dissing every one else's ideas ...back to their inception...and imposing something else.

[Bugbear]

That was a good post. I agree with most of it. Let me say before continuing, however, that I am not a scientist or biologist...I don't have your obvious expertise, in other words.

But, that said, I seriously doubt that putting a fish gene in a tomato creates a salmon. Or a scaled Early Girl. By any stretch of the imagination. And if it does, it becomes something else simply by virtue of not being able to breed with the original. Not being able to pass the original set of genes on to the next generation.

And yes, the true battle of the Traditional kilt genome is in the heads of the Traditionalists--I suspect they are the only ones who respect the Traditions enough to care.

Anytime a person has to redefine the parameters of issue...ie. "(re)-define Traditional"...you have to know that the basic assumptions and understandings and conventions and history and such, are not regarded with the same respect as they may be entitled to.

(Re)-defining is the same as dissing every one else's ideas ...back to their inception...and imposing something else.

I am not at all an expert in genetics and evolution.
I have studied and work with the concepts throughout my life, though.
I think we are basically on the same page, DWFII. From my view, the modernists are providing a selection pressure on the traditionalists, so are playing a role in the continuation of traditional Highland attire, however, it is the traditionalists who will be passing on the traditions, and any adaptations to the traditions.

By the way, splicing a fish gene into a tomato genome, if I remember correctly, produced a variety of tomato that was very cold tolerant, and could be passed on with the rest of the tomato genome.

[tripleblessed]

I got all that. I was not insulted or put off either by your comments or the original characterization.

Frankly I just didn't see how your remarks were germane.

Point made.

[Cowher]

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of tartans...many, if not most, of them Traditional by the strictest of definitions.

PS...I'm not extreme...it is people who want to create their own definitions and philosophies, wholly divorced from any external consideration--such as communicating with other people--who are extreme. That's the way I see it, in any event. But then I'm a Traditionalist.

First I didn't mean to call you extreme I was merely referring to the examples you were using. But I think the miscommunication is pointed out here:

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of tartans...many, if not most, of them Traditional by the strictest of definitions.

I assume you are speaking about a traditional tartan kilt as opposed to say a leather MUG. Where as I am speaking about the entire outfit. (I know earlier I spoke of a box kilt being traditional. But in general in these conversations I am referring to the entire outfit.)
Am I correct in thinking this?

[DWFII]

First I didn't mean to call you extreme

Am I correct in thinking this?

No worries. I may very well be extreme from your POV. And now you know what I think is extreme.

Besides, I've been called worse and I don't have that thin a skin.

As for the rest, all I was doing was comparing your 28 varieties of piranhas to the number of tartans. A tartan is a tartan is a tartan.

[Cowher]

Ok understood.
But what I was saying is something more like: from ten feet back a PV kilt will look the same as a wool kilt.
Not to say a tartan kilt is a tartan kilt is a tartan kilt, or even to say PV should replace wool.

[DWFII]

Ok understood.
But what I was saying is something more like: from ten feet back a PV kilt will look the same as a wool kilt. .

Is that what it's all about? Is that all that it's about? Appearances? Superficiality?

From everything that has been said in what? three?, four?, threads, I fear it is.

[sigh]

[Chirs]

Is that what it's all about? Is that all that it's about? Appearances? Superficiality?

From everything that has been said in what? three?, four?, threads, I fear it is.

[sigh]

Truly, you don't believe that. It is clear that you are most able to read between the lines (as it were) and you can see that, even in the light of the last comment, this runs much deeper than mere superficiality.

[DWFII]

Truly, you don't believe that. It is clear that you are most able to read between the lines (as it were) and you can see that, even in the light of the last comment, this runs much deeper than mere superficiality.

Well, I thank you for that. But I'm not really sure I don't believe it. More importantly, I'm not sure that it's not true for at least a percentage of people who have commented in these threads.

I'm not really condemning...I think I'm too old to condemn. But we talk about tradition and it goes back and forth between those who want to cast tradition in the most inconsequential light, those who want to (re)-define it to mean something that no one can really understand without that singular, and particular, point of view, and those who reject any and all notion that there might be something of value in respect...yes...I was going to elaborate further but "respect" all by itself about covers it.

Because what makes a Tradition valuable...to those who carry it into the future, who preserve it to pass down to the next generation, who take it up and make it a part of their own lives...comes down to respect. That's it...nothing more. Whether a Tradition can be modified, redefined, changed, evolve...is all beside the point. The point is respect.

I think Traditions are important...perhaps critically important to what makes us human. But if they are in any wise objectively important, then it seems self-evident that deliberately messing with them is not just disrespectful but the antithesis of everything that Traditions represent..

That said, stepping outside Tradition is of no consequence one way or the other. We all do it. But trying to pass it off as Tradition or Traditional is simply self-delusion.

My words aren't written in stone and I wouldn't want to impose my point of view on anyone else beyond this simple observation:

A point of view that respects everything that is embodied or implied by the word "Tradition" is just as valid as any other...and perhaps as grace-full as any perspective we ever encounter in our lives.

To bring it all around and make this post acceptable to the mods...I would observe that If the dollars we spend on wool are so onerous that we must convince ourselves that there's an equivalence in poly viscose; if we really believe that MUGs pay homage to Scottish culture and tradition; and so forth...then the only conclusion I can see is that it is all about superficiality--fashion, whimsey, caprice, iconoclasm...heterodoxy.

Where, indeed, is the substance?

What else can I say? In the end, if none of that resonates, what's left?

[Cowher]

I noticed today my Olde English Bulldogge striving in vain to lick her rear end. I thought to myself "What a useless endeavor. Striving to reach a hole"

I feel like I'm trying to reach my own

I'm bored.