re: "on writing and communicating"
Mar 20, 2002 04:14 AM
<<One book I enjoyed reading was ON WRITING: A
MEMOIR OF THE CRAFT by Stephen King. It's
partly autobiographical and partly on writing
In my case, as far as I can see, "writing clearly"
(rather than "clearly enough") about Theosophic
things would often involve watering down my intended meaning to the
extent that what's left, (after
catering to umpteen perceived needs, definitions,
fashions, biases, current topics, etc, etc), might hardly even resemble
my original thoughts. Sorry, I prefer not to write that "clearly."
I see writing for these lists as an opportunity to explore/express
meaning, primarily: If I feel that I have explored and
expressed meaning well enough from MY point of view, and expressed
myself in keeping with MY standards, then, IMO, I have at least made a
"meaningfull enough" dent in something, as far as I can see, even if my
posts are totally ignored in turn.
Eldon: <<Writing clearly is important. But with
Theosophy, there is a counterbalancing
aspect to presenting materials. Because of the
complexity of the philosophy and how everything is
interrelated to everything else, Theosophy is best
taught in an iterative manner. Different aspects are
presented each time, with additional details given.
Not everything is directly stated, giving the reader
opportunity to bridge the gaps in their own thinking
and learn the art of symbolic/metaphysical
Well, maybe you have some relevant points there,
Eldon, in a way . . . maybe . . . But I don't see how I
can please everybody and myself as well---in the
kind of basic terms that I see as relevant
here---without turning into some kind of less-meaningful politician or
caricature of myself, in
some way. I feel that these discussion lists ought to be viewed as
offering us all FREEDOM to express ourselves in whatever way that's most
MEANINGFUL to each of us in terms of genuineness as per our
"Theosophically related" interpetive tendencies, basically.
If the cost of pursuing our free thoughts is that we get ignored and
complained about, does that mean that
we should water down our thoughts into something
that's "more generally understandable" and/or "more
generally acceptable and fashionable" even if that
kind of "understadable/acceptable" is much too
drivelish from our own perspective? In my case,
since I'm not pretending to be any kind of sage or
teacher, here, that kind of cost is too high for me.
My willingness and interest in participating on these
lists seems to be directly proportional to whatever
intuitive freedoms I might detect/suspect from
moment to moment. Stulfity those freedoms, add too
many rules, and I'm out. You
"understandable/acceptable" sages can stay,
(whoever you are), and sage to each other to your
hearts content . . . but I don't see that kind of boxed-in and stylized
saging as particularly relevant or interesting, on the whole, though I
know of lots of
exceptions that MIGHT not be interepreted, in a sense,
as too boxed-in and stylized.
Besides, it's easy enough to ignore/delete posts that
don't interest us.
One of the things I like about Brigitte's posts is the
various spellink and grammatikal errors combined
wiz the varioous qoutes/comments in such a way that
I find myself needing to figure out various possiible
meanings in her posts "for myself." (Thank God that I
often make plenty of spelling, grammatical, and
meaning-related errors myself! Besides God, I guess
I have my karma to thank for that! Why "thank God"?
Well, isn't that part of how we all sort of naturally concede to basic
rules and fashions?)
In other words, I suspect that one ought to be able to read anything at
all, (tabloids, propaganda, lies, fiction, disinformation, disruption
tactics, etc, etc) and be able to extract various wisdoms from it. And,
having had to learn English as a second language, myself, I know what
that's like, and so I'm not really making fun of Brigitte's language
problems (except as the fun-making might out, naturally, or MIGHT show,
somewhat inadvertently, maybe, in some minor ways . . . ?). And I'm
sorry if I have created too much of a fun-making impression in some
apparently less qualified manner.
In a sense, I find in Brigitte's posts breaths of fresh
air. Whatever else her posts might be, in whatever
interpretive terms, they are, after all, products of . . . at least one
human being . . . ? At least? That is, in my interpretive way, I
tend to find the creative products of humans somewhat more interesting,
generally speaking, than the creative products of, say,
some "doggy" house guests, for example . . . but only
generally speaking! On the other hand, there would
seem to be, as I see it, SOME "doggy" house guests
that have been known to exhibit some rather remarkable traits of
intelligence and sensitivity, as in the case of our Sally, here, at our
home. (Sally and I, incidentally, have fairly frequent conversations of
a highly sensitive and philosphical nature!)
Eldon: <<<The goal is to bring someone to have an
exploring mind that thinks for itself and is capable of sustained
original insights. The effort is not simply to indoctrinate someone into
a collection of rigid metaphysical dogma. The difficult balancing act
is between writing clearly and not saying everything at once. It
involves progressively explaining things over a period of time rather
than trying to cram everything into a single essay. When we acquire this
become teachers to some small degree.>>>
Nice trick if you can pull it off!
Eldon: << The haggling over half-a-dozen conflicting
theories over what a scrap of paper says about what someone thought
about someone else a century ago seems far removed from real life.
(Note that I got carried away with that last sentence. 31 words! That's
long? Perhaps I should rewrite it?)>>
You go on as if you're afraid that we might all have a
mental age of about three. Would you believe five?
Six? Maybe higher, in some cases?
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application