"If exclusive orality protects human memory, it also guards against other depletions.
One of these is the capacity to sense the sacred through non-verbal channels. Because wrtings can grapple with meanings explicitly, sacred texts tend to gravitate to positions of eminence as to be considered the preeminent if not exclusive channel of revelation. This eclipses other means of divine disclosure.
Oral traditions do not fall into this trap."

With this said, we understand that the plebians (or everyman) of yesterday could understand the meanings and translations of everyday items that now only trained archaeologists can interpret.
No better example for this than Arawak and Lucayan Culture. We know what zemis are and what they were used for because historians have told us. How much of this can be said about the book called the Holy Bible?
Feel free to relate your feelings as long as you are clear to express that this is what you feel.
Likewise with faith please: express your faith but please state that you are speaking from your faith.
I would like this to remain an objective conversation as much as possible.

And for the sake of the scornful, I'll note that it is quite normal for me to post a topic without giving my perusal on the matter before hearing others'.

Please, Ladies and Gentlemen. Discuss.

I am not sure where you are going with this, or even if I understand it, but let me add my 2c as I see the question.

"If exclusive orality protects human memory, it also guards against other depletions.
One of these is the capacity to sense the sacred through non-verbal channels. Because wrtings can grapple with meanings explicitly, sacred texts tend to gravitate to positions of eminence as to be considered the preeminent if not exclusive channel of revelation. This eclipses other means of divine disclosure.
Oral traditions do not fall into this trap."
Whom do you quote? I am just interested to know.
When the person you quoted used the word "orality" I am assuming the definition is- the condition or quality of being oral?

With this said, we understand that the plebians (or everyman) of yesterday could understand the meanings and translations of everyday items that now only trained archaeologists can interpret.
No better example for this than Arawak and Lucayan Culture. We know what zemis are and what they were used for because historians have told us.
We know? Or we think we know? Or, we know what we know based on the information we have at hand and out ability to interpret that information. Also, holding out the hope that new information might be found that will change our understanding of a Zemis.

How much of this can be said about the book called the Holy Bible?
I think it is exactly as I stated in the above paragraph. Yet, if new information is found, it cannot be included in the Holy Cannons. Our writing down of Holy Scriptures tends to lock in an understanding that is centuries old. It does not allow for any new information to get in or any outdated information to get out. The oral tradition is a bit more flexible. However, in societies that use it, oral scriptures changed little as they were passed on "word perfect" from the master to his student.

If one's traditions are Oral or Written it matters little. Both are protected as THE word from above. When change does come, it comes slowly, painfully, and fought against!

I can think of only one example where this might not hold true. Some years ago Carl Sagan asked the Dali Lama a question, what he would do if science was able to disprove the central principles of the Buddhist faith, The Lama thought for a moment then replied, "Tibetan Buddhism would have to change." I doubt there are many religions that would so quickly come to that answer.

Let me close this bit, as I await your reply, with a quotation by Carl Sagan. "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Let me add. "When it comes, I hope we have the wit to see it and use it."

You said something at the beginning that I have to address. "....One of these is the capacity to sense the sacred through non-verbal channels." I believe this is possible. I believe that, at the end of the day, this is the only way to understand the Spiritual life. The books, the sermons etc. are just tools that help us to begin to understand. They can take us so far and no farther. If you stop at the words, you have stopped short.

Taoists tell us that. "The Tao that can be talked about is not the real Tao." I believe that the God we can define is not the real God. He is beyond words. So to reach him we have to go beyond words too. As a Buddhist I find that meditation is beyond words. (Buddhist don't believe in a God, but I believe there is a power beyond us - call it what you like.) Meditation begins with words, a mantra or a chant. It then drifts beyond words to a place of enlightenment were words, written or oral, cannot enter.

So, the written word is step one. An oral teaching is step two. Meditation is the third step. What is the last step? Death itself, where all will be revealed - one way or another!!!

"Orality"...are we getting dirty here???
:dgi:

"Orality"...are we getting dirty here???
:dgi:

Here are some definitions of the word "Orality."

1 The condition or quality of being oral; collectively, the personality traits characteristic of the oral phase of psychosexual development.

2 In Freudian psychology, a term used to denote the psychic organization derived from, and characteristic of, the oral period of psychosexual development.

3. In psychoanalytic theory, the psychic organization of all the sensations, impulses, and personality traits derived from the oral stage of psychosexual development.

I was assuming that parietal_03 might have been using the wrong word. Or that he was using the first definition "The condition or quality of being oral" to mean spoken traditions of religions, or perhaps even sermons?

Clear this up for us parietal_03, if you please. Perhaps there is a definition we are unaware of?

The quote is taken from Huston Smith's "The World's Religions" (The Revised and Updated Edition of The Religions Of Man)
And I think that in the context Mr. Smith used it, the word "orality" has nothing to do with sex.

http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=oral

I suggest #4.

The quote is taken from Huston Smith's "The World's Religions" (The Revised and Updated Edition of The Religions Of Man)
And I think that in the context Mr. Smith used it, the word "orality" has nothing to do with sex.

http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=oral

I suggest #4.

Thanks.
I am familiar with his work, some years ago I attended a lecture by him, but that quote escaped me.

Oral tradition/religion written tradition/religion practiced tradition/religion.
Were all once new and all will become old.
All are subject to the context of the time they are created and bent to practice in other times.

Oral tradition/religion written tradition/religion practiced tradition/religion.
Were all once new and all will become old.
All are subject to the context of the time they are created and bent to practice in other times.


Perhaps, oral trditions came to be in order to hold certain happenings/discoveries timeless. I heard an interesting quote the other day, I didn't get the name of the individual who said it.

"Whoever you are History is a part of your future."
The Khoisan and !Kung of Africa don't have the religious and civil squabbles we have because they are true to their word and their oral traditions do not stray. It is not about "The Winners write history" for them it is about sincerity and consistency both within and without realms of times.

For example July 17th, 1346 the Sun rose in the east and set in the west. Yesterday it did the same thing. Oral traditions hold fast to what is absolute truth for you and I. Has or rather, does the Bible hold fast to the oral traditions of those who scribed it and/or to The One who supposedly it's dictation is attributed to?

Perhaps, oral trditions came to be in order to hold certain happenings/discoveries timeless. I heard an interesting quote the other day, I didn't get the name of the individual who said it.

"Whoever you are History is a part of your future."
The Khoisan and !Kung of Africa don't have the religious and civil squabbles we have because they are true to their word and their oral traditions do not stray. It is not about "The Winners write history" for them it is about sincerity and consistency both within and without realms of times.

For example July 17th, 1346 the Sun rose in the east and set in the west. Yesterday it did the same thing. Oral traditions hold fast to what is absolute truth for you and I. Has or rather, does the Bible hold fast to the oral traditions of those who scribed it and/or to The One who supposedly it's dictation is attributed to?

Not the Bible we read. Even oral traditions have to start somewhere and its is the winners that start them.
Also play the circle game get about fifty people in a circle tell one a story and have him tell the next see how much the story has changed.
Just as the Israelite justified genocide they committed.