Toward a theory of Papacy

I've commented on Sedevacation before. Let us constrain what that can mean. Note that I am not, here, arguing that Saint Peter's Seat is vacant nor otherwise maloccupied today.

First, we must all accept that a vacant seat is possible. The whole of AD 1315 came and went without smoke from the Conclave. If one year, why not two; why not thirty. At some point, as the saying goes, we haggle over the price.

I posit also a distinction between Papacy and Roman episcopacy. Catholics accept John XXII as the Pope following AD 1316. John was not, however, in Rome. John was in Avignon. A Roman bishop was installed during his tenure: the fifth to take the name Nicholas. This Nicholas barely lasted two years and then scampered off to Avignon. Catholics consign him to antipope status, making a point of crowning (or is it sandaling) another Nicholas in 1397, as the fifth. Well, maybe. The former one was still the Roman bishop. Come to that, the latter one reigned over a schism too.

The distinction gets more interesting where we must define "Rome". During the Third Century Crisis the Romania's capitol moved outside actual Rome, finally to settle upon Constantine's City. Thence the fifth-to-seventh-century emperors dictated terms to Rome via Ravenna. Some bishops who remained at Rome were locally powerful, like Leo. Some were independent, like Vigilius and Martin. But as the impartial (because schismatic) historian Socrates points out, for the most part these bishops were... bishops. Socrates doesn't always even know who these Latin bishops are - because he doesn't care. Tell you whom Socrates does care about: the bishop of Constantinople, in his days Nestorius and then Maximian.

But but but the Greek guy could be deposed well, tell that to Benedict IX or to anybody involved at Constance AD 1415. Nestorius was a heretic! compared to Honorius? really? Following Ephesus I must consider Maximian more the Catholics' temporal father than contemporary Celestine. Although both were stuck in a difficult situation.

Interestingly for those of us in an Erasmian liberal tradition we must consider that William of Ockham could work only in Nicholas' side of Christendom, being an excommunicate in John's. The first Nicholas V was better for the cause of progress, whoever was pulling his string.

Perhaps "Pope" be a title Christians agree to bestow upon the most orthodox Christian bishop. The title might have to be posthumous. I might even grant the title to the Catholicos in Iraq; although Timothy Qadmāyé is perhaps disqualified as contemporaneous with Leo III. CORRECTION 10/9/21: Nah, screw Leo.

How Europe made the Knowledge Machine

Steve Sailer links to NYT on The Knowledge Machine. Publishers Weekly is on it too.

This traces modern scientody to the Western need for a common language, after Christianity broke in such a way that no side could marginalise the other. Schism had been a reality of the Christendom since, oh, Islam but up to the Middle Ages, either the schismatic state was left to itself or else some Crusade snuffed it.

From what I've been reading, the schism between the Avignon Pope and the Germans - especially AD 1328-30 when the Germans presided over the episcopacy of the (then) fifth Nicholas - was the first which foreshadowed the scientific world. For the first time a dissident philosopher like Marsilius could migrate to a friendly region. That meant he didn't fear excommunication - being #canceled, we would say. He didn't have to write in code as did Dante. William of Ockham was, exactly, the philosopher who mooted that a common understanding, even unto Scripture, could be had by disinterested inquiry.

Before all that, there was already a feeling among the nations' elites (i.e. knights and clergy) that all Christians were in it together. Mediaeval Europeans went ignorant of IndoEuropean linguistics and of modern genetics; but they did share a Bible. From that, Europeans intuited they were similar to each other, against Shem and Ham; which they could interpret as Sons Of Japhet. (The Basques might have been an exception - except that Euskara was a hinterland language whose nobles spoke Gascon and Navarrese Romance, like the lords over England speaking Norman.) The rediscovery of Tacitus in Germany lay still in the future.

From this mutual asabiya arose first the Crusade; then, in the late twelfth century, the tournament (see also Philip Hoffman). Knights from widely dispersed baronies, even rival baronies, could meet in one place for a mock battle. The same tradition was extant among the Nahua / Otomi peoples, also sharing a mythology.

Here were the two ingredients: first, that diverse peoples felt that they were kinsfolk; second, that these supposed brothers could not agree upon basics. We awaited the technological moment when neither pope nor king could ban Cambridge Analytica.

Oh noez social media

This blog is my sole footprint on "social media" and it is decidedly antisocial, as is its proprietor. I never got onto Twitter; I bailed OkCupid and Facebook (and soon enough Firefox) over fake-marriage. I keep hearing from every side about Social Media Toxicity. I tend to agree... for the individual who doesn't rely on it for a living. As whether this is good or bad for the Aristotelian Citizen however -

Still, one side in particular made a lot of noise about Cambridge Analytica. This trended the same side as who used to blame the Russians for how the 2016 election went here - although the former were quite coy about their own den(ial)ibility. Turns out the story was crap. Just like the Russian Collusion story.

"Not Even Wrong", some might say. Dr Peter Woit didn't stick to his knitting. But don't ask Woit about this BBC piece (nor about his postelection slander Julian Assange and Wikileaks, quite likely fronting for Russian secret services); he's moved on to The Social Dilemma. That one's also being hit but by the time Woit gets around to it, he'll have moved onto the next great windmill.

Want to know why a lot of people don't trust The Science^TM anymore? Much of that is because of scientists like Woit meddling outside their lane and doing it with lies. Also his not-so-implicit critique of the means by which dissidents get their message out via Non Approved Channels and, by extension, of anyone disagreeing with the Holy Word Of Woit generally.

As for social-media as a phenomenon: We in Gen-X remember when the VHF channels went unquestioned, especially before talk radio. Manufacturing Consent, the saying went. The problem isn't social-media as such and it is certainly not groups like Cambridge Analytica occasionally getting in on it.

The problem is... well, the problem is Woit. The problem is monopoly gatekeepers and their apologists. I'd say the best way forward is for these companies to be broken up. The madder Woit gets, the better we get.

No Protestants in foxholes

Next on the LOCKDOWN bookshelf: Robert von Ranke Graves, Goodbye to All That. As his name implies he is half Irish, half Bavarian. As do all halfbreeds and Bavarians he's writing his autobiography in his mid 30s.

Graves wrote this thing in a famous fit of pique from Majorca. The middle part is admittedly cobbled from a novel he was writing in 1917 about the war, but since that novel was roman de clef and, additionally, no good (few writers not named "Stephen King" are any good at 21 years of age) he fixed it up as nonfiction. Much of the rest reads like a suicide-note with a long list of enemies.

Graves at least made the right enemies: pompous asses like Bertrand Russell and - I'm sorry - mansplainers like HG Wells. I keep getting reminded of the intelligentsiya with the hard g. Also I am being reminded of proto-Oxbridge pacificism. Graves becomes disillusioned with the war after the Somme but is, himself, unwilling to sign off as a conscientious-objector.

Graves grew up C Of E and the whole experience has turned him near-atheist. He reports universal contempt for Anglican clergy in the trenches - for whatever reason, the generals protected them and rarely had them fight, which said clergy took as privilege not to fight. I was about to sneer at the No Atheists In Foxholes meme but then Graves carries on to the Catholic clergy there. The Papists made a point of standing with the ranks, often leading charges. These were heavily Irish and Glaswegian. I guess that's what they do.

That's pretty much all I ask: for a church that fights for her flock. Episcopalian priests won't.

Personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien apprendre

The French periodically run into problems in their diverse state. To these Paris always offers the same solution: order everyone to do what Parisien intellectuals agree upon. Lately the solution is to ban home schooling.

Everyone knows what the actual problem is: a foreign ideology seeking to subjugate France and those French who do not adhere to it. Nobody dares to speak this out loud; when the dog-whistle is blown, only the wolves may howl. Plus, the ideology makes at least as much sense - in places - than does French liberalism. Since the ENarchate has no moral or intellectual answer to the ideology, it raises oppression on all France "to be fair".

I predict that this move will fail. Just like America failed with its War On Terror.

They Saved Attilius' Brain

I am not spoiling Robert Harris' Pompeii nor that Paul Anderson movie if I mention that the volcano blows up and kills everybody. That condition may be... reversible.

Science fiction authors have been proposing new life to dead brains for awhile now. That classicists would be first to defy nature like this dates at least to Asimov's "happy goldfish bowl" story. (By the way this one is also looking more likely, these days.)

Before we get all excited about casting a Stone to Data spell over this fossil, keep in mind we also have those carbonised scrolls from Herculaneum, likewise going unread at present. Various methods are being rolled out to read those. Reading those scrolls is a prerequisite to going the full Futurama on a brain fossil.

Still: there's more than enough here for the next Michael Crichton, so have at it.

The Beer Gut Putsch

Some militia yahoos attempted to overthrow the government of Michigan. Richard Spencer condemns the plot. Ed Driscoll doesn't. Not saying Driscoll needs to condemn an anarchist, but he whaddabouts it all to the Antifa.

I am hardly one to deny to my readers their right to an "extreme" opinion. But.

If you want my opinion I agree with Spencer that this was illegal and stupid and, I'll add, evil. I condemn all that is (intrinsically) illegal, stupid, and evil. I condemn anarchy also, but I am repeating myself.

Spencer's initial take was that the FBI agent(s) should have scotched this thing before any actual planning was being done, like the house surveillance. To that, I must report that I've been around the Right long enough to know that you can't defuse stupid. MacG asks rather if the agents had done some of the work themselves.

Even though this circus and its monkeys are decidedly someone else's property, whatever circus you're in: if you encounter discussion of intrinsically illegal action (and I don't mean e.g. posting flyers), please ask yourself if you are - now - the target of an investigation. Know your limitations; if you cannot become the FBI agent yourself, then just get out. If you don't trust the FBI then rat out the plot to whatever local authorities aren't in on it.

And after the fact, don't downplay it. WHADDABOUT ANTIFA is downplaying it.

WELL LOOKY 10/10: Turns out this was a BLM op.