Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GTh] Becoming little - A generalist glimpses the forest

Expand Messages
  • BrerFrase@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/28/03 12:23:28 AM, Mike Grondin writes:
    Message 1 of 1 , May 29 10:00 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 5/28/03 12:23:28 AM, Mike Grondin writes:

      <<If, however, they were merely writing down a lot of stuff that they
      themselves didn't understand very well, that's a different story.>>

      This is a fascinating statement and that is a fascinating story, I bet.

      I often find your casual generalizations to be most provocative.

      Let's assume for a moment that though you may not have meant it, that this is
      the accurate take.

      (Common sense sometimes says it must be so.)

      What then?

      Let's assume the speaker knew all too well that those to whom he spoke would
      not "get it" at least not entirely (tabling the question - can one "partially"
      get it?)

      But in such a case consider the rhetorical strategy of such a speaker
      (whoever we take him to be). Assume that the speaker might have been, as reported
      often at least in the canonicals, rather inclined to render for one group words
      freighted with koan-like subtext, potential for enduring tortured nuance --
      rhetorically elliptical and endlessly elusive and yet perfectly resonant for the
      initiate -- well, fine, well done -- while at other times (& sometimes at the
      same time!) going to equivalent pains to speak in memorably plain,
      hallmark-simple conceptually facile even overly simplistic, purposefully parabolic ways?
      Not that a rhetorical matrix of such astounding simplciity on the one hand and
      such infinite subtle reach on the other is any less than we might expect, yet
      if, as you say, these initiates were "merely" scribbling down "stuff" they
      didn't have much of a clue about, it stands to reason that the speaker would
      have had some ulterior, supervening motive as his rhetorical purpose, over and
      above befuddling them, as common sense suggests he did? I find the explanation
      that he was purposefully obscuring meaning from the non-initiates because
      they were nt ready to be a bit of a stretch when we are talking about a
      compendium of sayings of this magnitude.

      Perhaps the answer lies, as has been suggested, somewhere within the
      mystical, inarticulable folds of group consciousness and that therefore the sayings
      were never meant to be exported, or even transcribed, for that matter. But some
      of them still sound flat out dumb, nonetheless!

      It is hard to imagine a rhetorical genius risking such a legacy of
      incoherence or resigning himself to it even, or even to be unaware of the probable
      outcomes and consequences of the sayings' preservations in mis-transcribed, written
      form.

      I find the canonicals suspect for the same reasons, though perhaps less so,
      in spite of their obviously doctored states.

      Something about the tone, and the rhetorical vacuousness implicit in the
      fragments...

      As you say "if, however, they were merely writing down a lot of stuff that
      they
      themselves didn't understand very well, that's a different story" --

      well why didn't they?
      and why were they writing it down, if incorrectly?

      I apologize for the hopelessly generalized form of this inquiry.

      What I am suggesting simply though is that the likelihood seems remote given
      the substantive context that the original speaker's words would have
      themselves been characterized by such rhetorical lassitude, a sort of purposefully
      willed inattentiveness towards the record, knowing as the speaker must have that
      those who followed would be writing things down. It just seems insoluble,
      rhetorically, such a legacy of dissolution there in the desert, leaving behind a
      sort of sentient purposelessness -- and implicitly on purpose!

      Not to get too carried away, but as a generalist reader all I can come away
      with from these fragments is that a whole lot of abstruse doctoring --
      scrivener malpractice -- was going on! Not to question the value or intrinsic
      legitimacy of GOT scholarship!

      I just suspect the speaker would have known his hearers would try to write
      "his stuff" down and that they would get it wrong -- and they did.

      Strange.

      But it strikes me as a very intriguing "story" indeed.


      :)

      And so I often find your casual generalizations to be most provocative.

      Thanks!

      F. Hubbard


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.