December 30th, 2007
“In a literate culture verbatim memorization is commonly done from a text, to which the memorizer returns as often as necessary to perfect and test verbatim mastery.” (Orality and Literacy 57).
This cumbersome memorization process is not necessary on the digital orality realm. The podcaster can use a script for verbatim recitation and an outline to stay on task and get close to the intended topic. Related to the discussion of memorization, in this post, I return to the discussion from (12.29.2007) regarding Digital Orality for the Illiterate or Sensory-Impaired. Read the rest of this entry »
December 29th, 2007
Another consideration for the potential application of digital orality is for those not currently able to read. Digital orality can be a great way for an illiterate person to communicate. That is, it seems theoretically possible to train one to use a basic recording application and microphone. While a truly and fully illiterate person would not be able to decipher all the commands, messages, and features displayed on screen, he or she could be shown where/what certain commands are, how to use them, and where to save files. Read the rest of this entry »
December 26th, 2007
Ong also discusses that a characteristic of orally-based thought and expression is that it is, what he deems, agonistically toned. Specifically, he discuses that in oral cultures, each narrative and other piece of information is with the knower. This is to say, there is little way to decipher any difference between the known and the knower. Therefore, it is not until the advent of the chirographic culture that this situation changed. “[Writing] separates the knower from the known.” (43).
While this point is accurate, digital orality replaces that connection between knower and known. In other words, writing takes a knower’s knowledge and makes it an abstract, attainable, knowable by anyone. This general concept can still be true; however, beyond the printed text, digital orality allows an individual to still be the originator, the knower, the one to whom listeners turn having sought him/her out. It is then possible for that listener to become the knower, too.
December 23rd, 2007
Another characteristic of primary orality that Ong discusses is that it is close to the human lifeworld. This is to say that since they have no real way to structure information that can stand on it’s own, somewhat separated from human experience, “… oral cultures must conceptualize and verbalize all their knowledge with more or less close reference to the human lifeworld. …. Oral cultures know few statistics or facts divorced from human or quasi-human activity. … An oral culture likewise has nothing corresponding to how-to-do-it manuals for the trades…” (Orality and Literacy, 42-43).
Clearly, the points Ong makes here represent many advantages of chirographic and electronic culture. Read the rest of this entry »
December 19th, 2007
In this post, I return to the conversation about whether digital orality is part of the secondary orality or can be considered a tertiary orality (see post on 11.12.07) and whether there is anything in the current age and level of orality that can be seen as a return to orality (see entire section on return to orality). Basically, new media and digital orality is not a return to orality, at least not primary orality, because we cannot at this point let go our reliance on, awareness of, recalling of words… even if we wanted to, which I doubt would ever occur. On page 3, Ong states, “The electronic age is the age of secondary orality.” So, what is our age now, how is it different from the electronic age, and is it logical to apply a new level (tertiary)? Read the rest of this entry »