“Firstly, to call each event singular, is to catch oneself in a generalization of a particular, that is to say commit a “contradiction” (in the most etymological sense: contra-diction)”

How close are we here (yet) to what the word “wisdom” usually brings to mind? My point is not to indicate that what this speaker is saying isn’t true–it’s simply to note that the making of his point begins with opposition to a view he has generalized. The qualifications are then required in order to subtract obvious self-interest from the formulation–which generates the mire of abstraction being “banished.” It may be convenient–as it often seems to be among those seeking a more manageable view of Wisdom–to reduce whole modes of thinking (modernism, for instance) to the status of masturbatory imputence. But in this case it seems a good thing to ask: why this sense of being failed in grave ways by traditional thinking–and how might one hope to break free of the rolling powers of containment represented by tradition, at least to the extent of being able to see it from a perspective that allows a more useful critique and intervention? It is the determinism of history many modernists wanted to confront–and of course it is always an easy argument to make that such a desire is necessarily utopian even as it is dystopian, that it always reveals an inflated ego, since daring to question the accumulated wisdon of history marks one as self-obsessed and self-important. A more accurate view would be to note that we all do this all of the time–unless of course you are a clone of a parent, brought up to be unwaveringly loyal. Artists, for instance, never make a name for themselves by simply making a work “as good as” those other established artists did. I have said too much–sorry. I just get tired of seeing modernists set up as eggheads jacking off on God, history, and Mom’s apple pie.

Much thanks for the followup. Looking forward to reading your blog