Hi Marsha, Yes, I agree, the oral word is never the same each time a story is told, so it remains dynamic with the times it is presented. If Buddha or Socrates were alive today, they would tell the same stories, but in a different way.
This baggage you speak of is exactly why the pragmatic approach is deceptive. We create experience and such experience is influenced by the model that we are analyzing such experience. The same is true for science, where the data (which is neutral) is interpreted according to the prevalent model. The subjective predominates in science. This is why new ideas take a while to establish themselves. That the sun revolved around the earth (a Western misconception) was due to the power of Aristotelian SQ, even though all the evidence and Egyptian and Arabic teachings pointed to our current conception. This Aristotelian manner of thinking in general is exactly what MoQ is against. Yet I see time and again dmb and the likes trying to subordinate Quality to such classification and truth. You are always a breath of fresh air, and it seems that you understand Quality better than those confounded academics. It is a different way of interpreting the world that they can never approach with their literal and dogmatic analysis. The attempt to make a religion of Quality with their constant presentation of their bible, as if it were written by a prophet is sometimes amusing. This is, of course what happens. Just look what happened to Christianity, or Gnosis. It seem the modern Greeks are the only ones who preserved the mystical message. While there are some who want to subject Quality to the rigors of truth, there are those of us that want to leave it free. This is always the battle, individuality against collectivism. Both are just, and so the battle continues. Mark On Nov 25, 2012, at 2:32 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > > > If one ignores the dynamics involved in the interrelationship with human > consciousness, written words (visual tradition) may _appear_ far more stable > than the oral tradition. But of course each time you revisit the written > word you carry along baggage filled with biases including the bias of your > last visit to same written word. > > > Marsha > > > _____________ > > > On Nov 25, 2012, at 4:06 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > Mark, > > You want my thinking still half-baked??? ;-) As I wrote, I am still in the > thinking stage. For instance, words within the oral tradition (spoken and > heard) will be accompanied by inflected emotion, while words in the visual > tradition need betray no emotions or bias. If RMP read Lila to us, his voice > would carry additional information not offered on the page. Without hearing > the emotion and/or emphasis in his voice I am left with only my own > projection/reaction (patterns). And of course, if he read to us in-person - > an immediate experience - we could stop to ask questions for clarification or > challenge a point. The written, visual tradition is detached from its > originator. Yes, I can see the invention of the visual tradition changed > everything. Everything! > > > Marsha > > > On Nov 24, 2012, at 7:24 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> All I have is my opinion. Rhetoric is not about being correct, it is about >> being persuasive. When Quality is put at the forefront, correctness is not >> the point. Rhetoric brings about awareness, not truth. >> >> Did you find Pirsig persuasive in his depiction of Quality? If so, why? >> What could he have expressed differently? Did he give you a good awareness >> of his Quality? It seems like there are many who do not have a clue, and >> don't even want to discuss the central subject matter of his books. What is >> a discussion of a metaphysics of Quality without the Quality part? >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Mark >> >> On Nov 24, 2012, at 1:20 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> You may be correct. I'm still at the thinking stage. The more I think >>> about it, the more there is to consider. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> On Nov 24, 2012, at 12:12 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marsha, >>>> In my opinion the transition from the oral can be expressed as the >>>> flipping of DQ/SQ to SQ/DQ. With words comes the objectification of >>>> reality. The transition of the subjective to the objective. The written >>>> word establishes this objectification. >>>> >>>> Many read MoQ hoping to find Quality in the words. As a result, we end up >>>> with a literal Quality which is purely objective. This is the problem >>>> with taking what Pirsig writes as dogma; as a set of rules that must be >>>> followed. As a result, one cannot appreciate Quality. Pirsig warns about >>>> this in his books with metaphors such as the "ghost of reason." >>>> >>>> I am much more of an auditory learner than a visual one. I like stories >>>> to be told to me rather than reading them. If Pirsig were to read Lila to >>>> us, much would be clarified about what he is presenting. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On Nov 23, 2012, at 5:59 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> >>>>> I've been thinking about words, well, words and their relationship to >>>>> time. What might have changed when words went from an oral (hearing) >>>>> tradition to a visual (books etc.) tradition? Isn't sound immediate and >>>>> more dynamic? In the oral tradition, by the time you get to the last >>>>> syllable of qual-i-ty, the sound of the first syllable is almost gone, >>>>> while the word on a page does not cease to exist. The visual, written >>>>> tradition, is certainly prone to be far more static. How does the >>>>> transition from an oral tradition to a written tradition figure onto the >>>>> level split between the social level and the intellectual level? Or >>>>> even, does it figure into the split? >>>>> >>>>> I remember trying to read Goethe's Faust (English translation.) I could >>>>> not read silently and have it make sense. Finally, I took it into the >>>>> bath with me each night and read it out-loud, and soon emerged the most >>>>> wonderful rhythm and words with all sorts of deep meaning. And of course >>>>> after that I loved Herr Goethe. I still have a desire to experience >>>>> hearing Faust in the original German, and I do not understand German. >>>>> Ahhhhh. Anyway, what might have changed when words went from an oral >>>>> tradition to a visual tradition? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
