December 2nd, 2007
“Oral societies must invest great energy in saying over and over again what has been learned arduously over the ages. This need establishes highly traditionalist or conservative set of mind that with good reason inhibits intellectual experimentation. … By storing knowledge outside the mind, writing and, even more, print downgrade the figures of the wise old man and the wise old woman, repeaters of the past, in favor of younger discoverers of something new.” (Orality and Literacy, 41).
Similarly, Eric Havelock writes (as quoted in O&L):
“The text frees the mind of conservative tasks, that is, of its memory work, and thus enables the mind to turn itself to new speculation (Havelock 254-305). (41).
Essentially, primary orality remained traditional out of necessity. Read the rest of this entry »
November 15th, 2007
“Fortunately, literacy, though it consumes its own oral antecedents and, unless it is carefully monitored, even destroys their memory, is also infinitely adaptable. It can restore their memory, too. Literacy can be used to reconstruct for ourselves, the pristine human consciousness which was not literate at all.” (Orality and Literacy. 15).
This is the continuation of the discussion on memory (see post on 11.13.2007) and how literacy can kill it (since we no longer have to remember so much, but can merely write it down for later recall). Ong also presents the converse in that literacy can enhance the memory.
This too, is something that digital orality can do: Read the rest of this entry »
November 13th, 2007
Among other classical rhetors, Plato greatly downplays the worth of the written text, believing it is an approximation of orality and that orality is an approximation of thinking. He considers writing an unnatural method of recording knowledge. Additionally, he argues that it brings forgetfulness, killing memory, and that it is good for reminder but not for memory. Read the rest of this entry »
