"I've had an idea so good Darwin would be proud of it so maybe I/he should write it now for him/me."
It's a type of brand loyalty. Medieval notions of loyalty are probably the key to this perplexity. Less economic branding mind, more feudal fealties or emblematic tribal-or-schoolism, or master/apprentice-ism.
Even 'belief' is a type of loyalty, at least a type of loyalty-focused context, way back when the word was invented in English to indicate some oath, some proposition of social connection which bound you to some organisation you "held dear' or "be- loved". it did not start as an intentional stance about reality. (Douglas Adams' 'electric monk' is a good criticism of this latter-day usage.)
Looks around the room, have I a tome on loyalty in the medieval period?
<Delays internet search 'for later'.>
Loyalty is the grease that slipped us from Empire through the dark ages into the medieval period, oaths instead of doctrine really, even the Inquisition later in Spain was about uncovering hidden oaths/beliefs: the Jew to the covenant, the witch to the devil…
Masses as binding practises of fealty.
Later still the Westphalian settlement is about loyalty of subjects. Catholics are barred from being English monarch because they would have a dual loyalty, to themselves as local Orthodox religious leader _and_ to the Pope in Rome.
Amazing how the religious completely forget this, and think it is all about doctrine or personal salvation. Or identity.
The Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland keeping making laws about "illegal secret oaths" which I've never understood the scare value of, but must be what non-empire conflict-based polities In Europe were based on, prior and post to Pax Romana.
Somehow the German barbarians kept the loyalty programmes going for a while but not as the Roman Church really intended, and not as the Byzantines continued with.
"I've had an idea so good Darwin would be proud of it so maybe I/he should write it now for him/me."
It's a type of brand loyalty. Medieval notions of loyalty are probably the key to this perplexity. Less economic branding mind, more feudal fealties or emblematic tribal-or-schoolism, or master/apprentice-ism.
Even 'belief' is a type of loyalty, at least a type of loyalty-focused context, way back when the word was invented in English to indicate some oath, some proposition of social connection which bound you to some organisation you "held dear' or "be- loved". it did not start as an intentional stance about reality. (Douglas Adams' 'electric monk' is a good criticism of this latter-day usage.)
Looks around the room, have I a tome on loyalty in the medieval period?
<Delays internet search 'for later'.>
Loyalty is the grease that slipped us from Empire through the dark ages into the medieval period, oaths instead of doctrine really, even the Inquisition later in Spain was about uncovering hidden oaths/beliefs: the Jew to the covenant, the witch to the devil…
Masses as binding practises of fealty.
Later still the Westphalian settlement is about loyalty of subjects. Catholics are barred from being English monarch because they would have a dual loyalty, to themselves as local Orthodox religious leader _and_ to the Pope in Rome.
Amazing how the religious completely forget this, and think it is all about doctrine or personal salvation. Or identity.
The Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland keeping making laws about "illegal secret oaths" which I've never understood the scare value of, but must be what non-empire conflict-based polities In Europe were based on, prior and post to Pax Romana.
Somehow the German barbarians kept the loyalty programmes going for a while but not as the Roman Church really intended, and not as the Byzantines continued with.