You Can't Step in the Same Rant Twice!

Today in what was supposed to be a dry, procedural organizational call with @rufuspollock I broke into a rant so epic Rufus nudged me to reproduce it. I mumbled semi-sincere assent to that idea, then went out on my daily walk where all authentic inspiration truly lies. I did not need Athena to manifest in a physical vision before my wandering eyes, but the goddess spoke to me nonetheless, and about her clear meaning there can be no debate. Her message is displayed above in the title of this thread:

“You Can’t Step in the Same Rant Twice!”

This, therefore, will be a derivative rant, downstream as it were from the prior one. A Second Rant for the Second Renaissance. In the previous rant, among many other undirected swings, I cast lengthy shadows of doubt on the very notion that we currently inhabit a “Second” Renaissance. On a scale of 1 to 10 renaissances, we are somewhere off the scale. Here, with the assistance of my AI minions, I drive that dagger deeper still and twist and twist and twist with no compunction whatsoever!

The point is not to count “renaissances” and come up with either cardinal or ordinal numbers. Renaissance should be a verb! It’s something to do, not something to catalog! Make. Culture. New. Again. Just do it. Don’t analyze it to death! Turning serious business meetings into something like guerrilla street theater is a medium I have explored with some effect over all these many years. But like I shared with Rufus, Sylvie has a more complete grasp of these matters. I’ve lately drawn inspiration from content like this: MYTHOS: art & ideas for an emerging world

2 Likes

Yep, thumbs up for Sylvie’s vision.

1 Like

@RobertBunge I appreciated what you wrote about a plurality of Renaissances in history – I’ve become more aware of that in my own historical studies. And I like the idea of renaissance as a verb! I’m wondering what your thoughts are about using an adjective or descriptor to describe the kind of renaissance(s) that is emerging now in the 21st century. While labeling complex movements can be fraught with problems, one could argue that a name can help bring together and energize a movement. For example, Jeremy Lent has recently used “Ecocivilization” or an ecological civilization. If the idea of “Renaissance” is still powerful and meaningful, is there an adjective or adjectives that could be linked to “Renaissance” that helps to reflect what is going on here? For example, “The Gaian Renaissance”? That helps capture the global scope and planetary ethos of the communities and ecovillages arising across the world today. It signals the emergence of a cosmopolitan, ecological civilization whose art, science, culture, and politics align with the sacredness of life itself. One potential confusion of “Gaian” though would be if people assume it is specifically referencing Lovelock’s Gaian hypothesis and endorsing all of his views, which I wouldn’t want to imply.

Having tried my hand at branding over the years a few times, I’m pretty aware that I am not very good at it! So I’ll leave it to others to suggest the adjectives!

I will however gladly be more explicit about my particular theory of change. “Renaissance” is a fancy term for “rebirth”. I see culture as needing periodic rebirth or regeneration as a matter of course, because among other things, culture is subject to entropy. Meaning drifts, deteriorates, and becomes dust. (Confucius, for example, wanted to “rectify names” for essentially this reason). So there is nothing all that special about needing cultural regeneration now. What’s special is the relatively new global context - any emerging globally-scoped culture will need to make its peace with all prior continental-level cultures. That will take some doing!

To put an even finer point on it, for me, lived experience is golden. The best words flow from the depths of such lived experience. No two people will necessarily choose the same words. Forging culture is an intersubjective process of swapping words and symbols with one another. I’m betting (informed by numerous historical examples), “ah ha!” insights will emerge from such discussions. The adjective you seek will likely feel like it came from the ether, or will appear in a dream, or will flow from lips of a blind prophet, or will be voiced by random children in the street. Me? I listen to the crows and the seals!

1 Like

Based on my first reply above, I got to thinking about how useful Confucius might be for a generalizable model of cultural rebirth or reformation. On my walk this morning, I got the idea of asking AI to apply Confucius to the Protestant Reformation. (That result is below). For what it’s worth!

Analyzing the Protestant Reformation through the Confucian doctrine of the Rectification of Names (Zhengming) offers a fascinating cross-cultural framework for understanding the 16th-century religious upheaval.

In Confucian philosophy, the Rectification of Names posits that social harmony relies on things in actual fact aligning with the implications attached to their names. When Confucius was asked what he would do first if given power to govern, he replied that he would rectify names. The famous maxim is: “Let the ruler be a ruler, the subject a subject, the father a father, the son a son.” If a leader acts like a tyrant rather than a moral exemplar, he is merely a “fellow” and loses his legitimacy.

Viewed through this lens, the Protestant Reformation was fundamentally a massive, continent-wide demand to rectify the names within Western Christianity.

The Crisis of Un-Rectified Names

By the early 16th century, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other reformers looked at the Roman Catholic Church and saw a profound failure of zhengming. The titles, roles, and institutions of the Church had become entirely disconnected from their original, scriptural definitions.

  • The Pope: The title implied the “Vicar of Christ” and the ultimate spiritual shepherd. In reality, Renaissance popes (like Alexander VI and Julius II) were acting as territorial princes, military commanders, and wealthy patrons of the arts. To a Confucian, a shepherd who acts as a warlord has abandoned his “name.”

  • The Priest and Bishop: The name implied a spiritual teacher and a moral exemplar for the local flock. The reality of the era was plagued by pluralism (holding multiple offices without being present), clerical ignorance, and widespread breaking of celibacy vows.

  • Indulgences: The name implied a spiritual grace or a remission of temporal punishment for sin. The reality had devolved into a financial transaction—essentially a tax or a product bought to fund the building of St. Peter’s Basilica. The “name” of grace had been corrupted by the “reality” of commerce.

Sola Scriptura as the Ultimate Dictionary

To rectify names, one needs a standard by which to define them. For the Confucian, this standard was found in the rituals and texts of the sage kings of antiquity. For the Protestant Reformers, the standard was Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone).

Luther’s translation of the Bible into the vernacular was an act of extreme rectification. By giving the text to the common people, Luther was essentially handing them the definitive dictionary of Christian roles. He was arguing that the Church hierarchy had lost the authority to define what a “church,” a “priest,” or “grace” was, because their actions no longer matched the ancient text. The Reformers sought to bypass centuries of institutional distortion to return to the pure, original definitions found in the New Testament.

Rectifying the Hierarchy: The Priesthood of All Believers

When names are thoroughly corrupted, the resulting institutions must be restructured to reflect reality. Luther’s doctrine of the “Priesthood of all believers” was a radical redefinition of social and spiritual roles.

Because the institutional priesthood had failed to live up to its name, Luther argued that the name “priest” actually belonged to all baptized Christians. He erased the hard ontological line between the “spiritual estate” (clergy) and the “temporal estate” (laity). In a Confucian sense, Luther redefined the “subject” (the layperson) to have direct access to “Heaven” (God) without needing the corrupted “bureaucracy” (the clergy) as an intermediary.

A Confucian Critique of the Reformation

While a Confucian scholar might sympathize with Luther’s diagnosis—that the Church’s titles no longer matched its moral reality—they would likely be horrified by the Reformation’s methods and results.

The ultimate goal of Zhengming is social harmony and order. Confucius believed that rectifying names would lead people to behave correctly, thereby peacefully restoring the state. Luther, however, prioritized theological truth over social cohesion.

  • The Loss of Harmony: The Reformation shattered the unified framework of European Christendom, leading directly to peasant uprisings (which Luther himself violently condemned to restore order), schisms, and more than a century of devastating religious wars, culminating in the Thirty Years’ War.

  • The Danger of Individual Interpretation: From a Confucian perspective, allowing every individual to interpret the “classics” (the Bible) leads to endless splintering. Without a unified, recognized authority to maintain the standard of names, Protestantism rapidly fractured into hundreds of denominations—a state of chaos entirely antithetical to the Confucian ideal of a singular, harmonious social order.

Conclusion

Through the lens of the Rectification of Names, the Protestant Reformation can be understood as a righteous rebellion against a spiritual bureaucracy whose actions no longer matched its titles. Martin Luther functioned as a disruptive sage, pointing out that a corrupt church is no church at all. However, while the Reformation succeeded in rectifying the theological definitions for millions of believers, it failed the ultimate Confucian test: it achieved truth at the tragic expense of unity and harmony.