The 2008 book Ritual and Its Consequences: An Essay on the Limits of Sincerity is hard for me to understand, but I’ve been trying to figure it out, as the concepts it considers seem interesting and important:
The discussion of ritual that you quote resonates for me. I've noticed that some people seem to focus on the form of ritual, and want everything to happen exactly correctly, as if the ritual will be sullied if anything goes wrong. My attitude has always been that voluntary participation in the ritual is what matters. If someone stumbles or spills something, or enters at the wrong moment, the ritual has still been observed, and it's as binding and permanent as if nothing goes wrong.
When planning the ritual, if there are optional or customized parts, it's important to get those right, because the options chosen or the unique features that were designed speak about the intent of the participants more particularly than the decision to participate at all.
I'm mainly thinking about weddings and funerals, awarding of merit badges, or public promotion ceremonies.
The issue of sincerity is more distant for me. I don't know how to detect sincerity in others, so the author must be saying that some people respond to a lack of ritual in their relationships by expecting more thorough professions of feeling. I don't think that's how I react, but perhaps he's right about "most people".
A little off-topic, but I googled on "springtime of the peoples", thinking it might the origin of modern collectivist ideologies (fascism, socialism, communism). Seems it's not.
But in a conversation with ChatGPT about it, it noted a "civilizational rot at the level of concepts". In its words:
The word *liberty* is broken. It conflates three clashing ideas: (1) freedom from control (1776, classical liberalism), (2) freedom through collective rule (1848, nationalism/socialism), and (3) freedom as human flourishing (Aristotelian, humanist). Adding modifiers doesn’t fix this — they’re dropped in rhetoric, masking real disagreement. We need new root words for each. Without clear terms, meaningful political debate is impossible.
The discussion of ritual that you quote resonates for me. I've noticed that some people seem to focus on the form of ritual, and want everything to happen exactly correctly, as if the ritual will be sullied if anything goes wrong. My attitude has always been that voluntary participation in the ritual is what matters. If someone stumbles or spills something, or enters at the wrong moment, the ritual has still been observed, and it's as binding and permanent as if nothing goes wrong.
When planning the ritual, if there are optional or customized parts, it's important to get those right, because the options chosen or the unique features that were designed speak about the intent of the participants more particularly than the decision to participate at all.
I'm mainly thinking about weddings and funerals, awarding of merit badges, or public promotion ceremonies.
The issue of sincerity is more distant for me. I don't know how to detect sincerity in others, so the author must be saying that some people respond to a lack of ritual in their relationships by expecting more thorough professions of feeling. I don't think that's how I react, but perhaps he's right about "most people".
The book authors would say you are taking a sincere stance toward rituals.
Is that intentionally ironic?
The distinction between “orthodox” observance in Christianitys requires internal faith
Judaism’s focally “orthoprax” since the ritual obligations neither require nor even refer to belief or faith
A little off-topic, but I googled on "springtime of the peoples", thinking it might the origin of modern collectivist ideologies (fascism, socialism, communism). Seems it's not.
But in a conversation with ChatGPT about it, it noted a "civilizational rot at the level of concepts". In its words:
The word *liberty* is broken. It conflates three clashing ideas: (1) freedom from control (1776, classical liberalism), (2) freedom through collective rule (1848, nationalism/socialism), and (3) freedom as human flourishing (Aristotelian, humanist). Adding modifiers doesn’t fix this — they’re dropped in rhetoric, masking real disagreement. We need new root words for each. Without clear terms, meaningful political debate is impossible.