# [Of Oral and Written Tradition – An Abstractly Ironic Thoughtpiece](https://twitter.com/LegitDefinitely/status/1215070599162130433)

There is a general opinion that oral tradition is primitive, and that it is a mark of an advanced civilization to write down codes, traditions, and stories. Let us discuss why that is, and whether this is a valid assumption.

At first glance written material by far outclasses its oral counterpart. It is a superior teaching tool as you can consult it anytime and transfer exact ideas, more permanent as a written work can outlive its author by centuries, and much more accurate for it is unchanged.

Look at every great civilization. It was by written work that they organized, and expanded, and became ever richer. It was their codified legal systems that kept them stable, and it was that same written word that taught sons the ways of their fathers.

Are these things truly a mark of superiority, or are they perhaps a cause of individual stagnation? Do they trade long term adaptability for short-to-mid term stability? Or is there another thing altogether that can be said of this?

Let us first consider this : Oral tradition is fluid. Written tradition is rigid. (Relatively speaking)  
By this, they are respectively more dynamic and more static. What does it say about the kinds of cultures that either of those form and are in turn formed by?

A culture that writes down its rites sees a much slower change in them, and thus a generally more culturally violent shift in its practices and values. A culture that orally passes down its rites, sees a much quicker, but harmonious shift in its practices.\

By this – Spirit of the rite vs Ceremony of the rite. That is, general intent vs precise execution. 
That means in one case more importance is placed on the ability of the ritualist while, in the other, more importance is place on his knowledge. Intuition vs Repetition.

That being said, making it about repetition, opens practices to those who would not have attained them without such a system. This is to be kept in mind when wanting to argue about the merits of each process. Whether it is a good thing, is for you to decide however.

This too applies in terms of sociocultural systems. One is dense, while the other is loose. When impacted the former hardens and breaks what struck it, or breaks when struck. The latter wraps around what struck it and either absorbs it, or is absorbed by it.

Oral tradition is adaptable. It is heavily and far more directly influenced and shaped by those that practice it. Consider a shaman who after a time discovers a new process, and adapts practice to accommodate. Consider a priest who is bound by sacred written word.

Written tradition reinforces its dogma, for the act of writing it down forms permanence. 
“IT IS WRITTEN!” thus it is. So one learns what is written and accepts it as fact, for who are they to challenge written word? It's either direct challenge, or nothing.

In contrast, an oral tradition can be subverted and molded by its carrier. This can be done in direct challenge, or through subterfuge. Consider a shaman who rejects an older concept and just stops mentioning it. If without merit, that concept is destroyed utterly.

The written tradition is more precise, and thus more detailed. This suggests an established aesthetic and retention of a larger whole, the power of which cannot be denied. However, by said precision, it can get bogged down in aesthetic detail. This creates practical redundancy.

The oral tradition is based on a much more simplified retention of key elements, which are adapted as generational need progress. By this, generations shape the tradition as opposed to being shaped by it Relatively speaking of course, as in both cases the exchange is two-ways.

This means that the oral tradition is far less prone to accidental retention of irrelevant concepts that gained useless significance via aesthetics and thus prevents useless rituals. It is also the more direct and locally practical of the two, as it is less bound by etiquette.

In practice, this means that tradition works with the changes that an ethnos faces, and not despite them.  Further, it protect the tradition from retaining bad ideas, mistakes, and outdated concepts that should have died, but didn't since they had been written down.

A written parasitic concept is far more difficult to get rid of than an oral one. If a concept is forgotten, then it was not important, or served no purpose. If it was rejected by the culture then it no longer suited it. Such is the way of life and death of ideas.

Yes, you can write down good ideas, but you can also write down bad ones, and a society that can afford to write down a faulty concept, is in a position where this concept will be able to cause ills for much longer than would be allowed otherwise.

While teaching a concept is certainly made easier via written word, it also allows teaching it to those that should not be taught said concept. If you have to teach your tradition to someone via rote, it is not for them.

By this, you can easily disbalance the energetic harmony of a cultural system. (refer to my previous thread - Of ethnos and energy fields) 
A prime example of such a disbalanced system is India, or rather what was done by stagnating Aryan legacy.

Misinterpretation and blind faith via the codification and hardening of what is supposed to be a loose and adaptable system. As well as ritualistic interpretations of abstracted concepts. This caused stagnation. I can and will expand on this further, later.

By this, you can say that while the learned approach is more structured, it is often a simulacrum, for it is not known, just accepted. The intuitive approach is by this less structured, but natural and real. The same applies on a metaphysical level.

An idea that is written down is bound. It is locked in, not unlike the concept of a quantum observer.
An idea voiced is less so, or rather the burden of its bounding can be thrown off much easily. 
By this, if we were to wipe the internet clean, a huge burden would be lifted.

On the level of flesh, oral tradition is naturally eugenic. Consider the ability to quickly comprehend and directly convey concepts, which must also be remembered. Forcing an individual to constantly work their brain and rely on innate intuitive knowledge.

By the same idea, written tradition is naturally dysgenic. For the individual, while being able to more reliably refer to specific concepts, does so not by his own recollection, but rather by the use of outside tools. You could say that it is transhumanist.

That an individual must refer to written word to be able to deal in complexity, is not an indication of that system's superiority, it is instead an indication of individual degradation. The requirement of a crutch to help one's brain operate.

Oral tradition is then much more suited to the passionary individual that forms systems, while written tradition is more suited to the subpassionary individual that operates within a system. (I will write another piece on systems and their meta later)

One last point – Oral tradition anonymises its creator, removing them from practice. Message over Messenger. Concept over Medium. By this, things like author worship and ego are separated from the original idea. This will be another piece in the future.