Hi Gav, Just wondering. What is about not using capital letters that you find appealing? To those of us use to normal punctuation, you make it more difficult to read what you write. Thanks. Platt
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 6:13 AM, gav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i have heard of the alexander technique...very interesting. alexander > developed it after he began to lose his voice...not the best for a stage > actor. he sought help and nought worked until he started to work with his > own posture and body-awareness. > i like the remembering idea. gurdieff - i will have to have a squiz one > day. > > just been reading about the alphabet - seems the adoption of the hebraic > 'alpha beth' into greece (circa 800 bc) was a key moment. it took a couple > of hundred years or so to challenge the oral tradition of the bards > (sophists) and it was its complete severance from any phenomenal connexion > that enabled SOM to gain its first ascendancy. > the hebraic alpha beth was still connected to the sensible world. each > letter's name corresponded to an animal or plant etc and the very letter > itself often had a pictographic resemblance to the corresponding entity > aswell (Aleph, A, is also hebraic for Ox, turn A upside down, as it is > written in hebrew, and it looks like an ox head). > when the greeks took on this alphabet they lost any phonetic/pictographic > correspondences with the sensible world. the matter had become entirely > abstract. a was still alpha but it no longer meant ox. a/alpha was the > beginning of the abstract world of eternal unchanging forms, which in turn > became a buttress for an idealized acorporeal heaven. the connection with > the earth is severed by the very sounds - language - that grew from the > primordial kinship and dynamic interplay of the human and the living world. > > anyway i will leave it there for no...david abram is the man and spell of > the sensuous the book > > > --- On Tue, 29/7/08, Peter Corteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Peter Corteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [MD] SOM - do we need it? > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Received: Tuesday, 29 July, 2008, 6:26 PM > > Hi Gav, > > > > I'd not heard of Merleau-Ponty before; I think there is > > a strong connection > > here with the work of F.M.Alexander and then a reinforcing > > tie back with > > Alexander's influence on Dewey. Alexander's was a > > very practical approach to > > the use of the self especially with regard to postural > > habit. Critically, > > the technique he developed is based absolutely on none-SOM > > principles in his > > treatment of the self as a psycho-physical organism where > > the practitioner > > attempts to constantly re-establish sensory contact with > > the body and > > thereby lives more in the moment. > > > > Also, the practice of self-remembering (re-membering: again > > deliberate > > re-establishment of sensory contact with the body while > > working) is, without > > question, the most useful thing I took away from my time in > > Gurdjieff > > groups. > > > > -Peter > > > > 2008/7/29 gav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Pirsig's mission is to replace SOM with MOQ, so > > why are many on this list > > > reluctant to let SOM go? > > > > > > the answer, i believe, is that SOM is so entrenched in > > our collective > > > psyche that it is very difficult to conceive of it > > being superceded. if this > > > supercession were not difficult then pirsig > > needn't have spent decades > > > thinking through the problem. pirsig is not the first > > philosopher to > > > recognise the subject/object schism...indeed this > > profound dilemma has been > > > haunting philosophy for centuries. to move beyond SOM > > requires radical > > > surgery. > > > > > > the intellectual cannot be solely SOM: the MOQ is an > > idea and it is not > > > SOM. > > > > > > to let go of SOM is to let go of the idea of dualism, > > of solipsism, of the > > > possibility of pure objectivity. instead the > > subjective becomes partnered > > > with the intersubjective (to follow husserl and > > merleau-ponty). the > > > intersubjective world - the previously > > 'objective' world - is the world of > > > phenomenal consensus. > > > > > > with the copernican re-ordering of the universe a > > schism was created: the > > > everyday world of our perceptions was usurped by the > > idea of the 'real' > > > order of a heliocentric universe. the locus is not > > with our own body-subject > > > and its being-in-the-world, but with an abstract point > > of reference. this > > > abstract realm is only accessible by the intellect. in > > other words reason > > > becomes the sole method of recognising truth - > > plato's world of forms, > > > christian heaven, and the pre-eminence of (SOM) > > intellect all presuppose and > > > perpetuate this abstract-phenomenal dichotomy with > > precedence given to the > > > abstract. in other words the abstract becomes real and > > the phenomenal > > > becomes epiphenomenal: this is baudrillard's > > 'simulacrum' or the spectacular > > > reality of the situationists. SOM is part of this > > worldview and it can't be > > > separated from it. to try and hang on to SOM is to > > miss the point of > > > pirsig's work. > > > > > > the copernican revolution enthroned the sun as the > > centre of things; this > > > is a paternal standpoint. the earth is the goddess, > > the sun is god and the > > > human is supposed to be the dynamic union of the two. > > since copernicus the > > > earth has become merely an object and only god - the > > male aspect of divinity > > > - is recognised. > > > > > > we perceive from earth. our experiential locus is the > > body-subject - this > > > is the experiential centre of the universe (god is an > > intelligible sphere > > > whose centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere - > > cusa). only from this > > > point of view can we esemplastically reconcile the > > realms of heaven and > > > earth into a dynamic unity. > > > > > > if we need more proof of the need for SOM to be > > superceded we need only > > > look to phenomenology and existentialism. the > > psychopathological effects of > > > SOM were recognised and predicted by husserl and > > others (most famously > > > dostoevsky). SOM is the 'disensoulment' of the > > earth - of ourselves. it is > > > the mechanisation of life and human and it is this > > that is the meaning of > > > the robot/AI myths - NOT the production of truly > > intelligent autonomous > > > mechanical beings, but the production of mechanical > > beings from truly > > > intelligent autonomous ones!!!!!!!! > > > > > > so i entreat one and all to stay true to the core of > > pirsig's work. if you > > > think SOM is okay then you are very sorely mistaken > > and you should probably > > > go back and read bob's books again...slowly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 > > Search. > > > www.yahoo7.com.au/search > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > > > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > Archives: > > > > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search. > www.yahoo7.com.au/search > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
