|
The Architecture of Transmission The modern druid’s
recovery of Prodition as the
inverse of Tradition By Victor Langheld In the study of human development and cultural
preservation, we have long relied on the word tradition to describe the
vital continuity of our species. However, our linguistic map has a glaring
vacuum where the inverse of tradition should be. If tradition is
the data transmission mechanism of the past, what is the data transmission
mechanism of the future? By returning to the Latin roots of traditio and productio,
the druid Finn recovered and reframed the word prodition. Far
from its common association with treason, prodition represents
the "forward-giving" necessity of the adult—the generative survival
mode that "leads forth" the future, often at the risk of being
branded a betrayal. I. The Etymological Foundation: The Hand-Off vs. The
Lead-Forth To
understand the recovery of prodition, we must
first deconstruct its mirror: tradition. Derived from the Latin tradere (trans- "across" + dare
"to give"), tradition is literally a "giving across." In
Roman law, it was the physical delivery of an object to a new owner. In
contrast, the word production stems from producere
(pro- "forward" + ducere
"to lead"). While tradition deals with the delivery of the
arrived, production deals with the leading forth of the non-existent. The
"recovered" term prodition acts as
the bridge. If we apply the prefix pro- (forward) to the root dare
(to give), we arrive at proditio. In
classical Latin, this word evolved to mean "betrayal" or
"treason." This is not a linguistic accident. To "give
forth" or "hand over" something new—or to hand over a secret
to the future—is often perceived by the collective as a betrayal of the past. II. The Infant’s Survival: The Mode of the
"Scrape" The human
life cycle begins in a state of Necessity-as-Tradition. For the
infant, survival is a passive, receptive act. We may call this the "Scraping
Mode." The
infant "scrapes" (i.e. learns, or as the druid crudely put it,
“sucks”) the
environment for the remains of the past: the language already spoken, the customs
already established, and the nourishment already gathered. In this stage, the
traditio (the hand-off) is the infant's
entire world. ·
Loyalty as Survival: The
infant’s survival depends on their ability to mirror and internalize the
tradition perfectly. ·
The Risk: The only risk to the infant
is the absence of tradition (neglect). III. The Adult’s Necessity: The Mode of "Prodition" As the
individual matures, the "scrape" is no longer sufficient. To sustain
the next generation, the adult must transition from a recipient of tradition
to a facilitator of prodition (i.e. does, or the druid
crudely put it, “spits”). This is Necessity-as-Production. The adult
sees, actually experiences, what the infant cannot:
that the resources being scraped are finite. To survive, the adult must
"give forth" (prodere) new
realities. They must lead the tribe forth into new territories, new
technologies, or new conceptual frameworks. ·
The Proleptic Act: This is
a proleptic survival mode. The adult acts now based on a future that
does not yet exist, "taking beforehand" the requirements of
tomorrow. ·
The Example of the Farmer: A farmer
who saves seeds rather than eating them is practicing prodition.
They are "betraying" the immediate hunger of the present (the
scrape) to "hand over" a harvest to the future. IV. The Innovator’s Dilemma: Why Production is Seen as
Betrayal The
tragedy of the "proditor" (the forward-giver)
is that their act of creation is frequently interpreted as an act of
destruction. Because the community identifies the "scrape" with
safety, any movement away from the "hand-over" feels like treason. The Grim End: Historical Examples 1. Prometheus: He saw
the "necessity" of warmth and technology. By "giving
forth" (prodition) fire to man, he
"traduced" (led across) the boundaries of the gods. His "grim
end" was the systemic punishment for choosing the future of humanity
over the tradition of Olympus. 2. The
Industrial Luddites: In the early 19th century, weavers who had
mastered the "tradition" of the hand-loom
saw the "production" of the power-loom as a betrayal of their
craft. The innovators who led these machines forth were met with violence
because their prodition threatened the
"scraping" survival of the guild. V. Conclusion: The Necessary Betrayal The druid
Finn’s recovery of the word prodition allows
us to name the tension at the heart of human progress. Tradition is the floor
upon which we stand, but prodition is the
air into which we breathe, the high survival capacity sustenance which we
create. The adult
(of today) is the one who must bear the burden of being a
"traitor to the past" (of yesterday) in
order to be a "saviour of the future." We must recognize
that the "grim end" faced by many innovators is the result of a
linguistic and social misunderstanding: the failure to see that pro-duction
is the highest form of tra-dition. Without the
"forward-giving" of the adult, the "scraping" of the
infant eventually finds only dust. |