The first day of class I mentioned that I don't have an affinity for books and reading, but I couldn't put this reading assignment down. I thought it was extremely interesting to read Ong's relation of the oral to written progression to the print to digital progression. Ong writes very clearly and backs up his ideas which proved for a very informative read. I left a comment on Kayla's entry on this topic which read:
I found this reading particularly interesting because of the way Ong relates the topic to the shift from print to digital text. I find the quote (later on in this section of this reading),
"If a book states an untruth, ten thousand printed refutations will do nothing to the printed text: the untruth is there forever" reminds me of Phaedrus particularly because of the discussion we had in class when Dr. Jerz mentioned his PDA is part of his "external memory." Makes us sound like we're becoming computers ourselves. Hah.
Kayla's agenda item relates back to Ong's final paragraph in section III where he says we forget that writing is a technology. I touched on this in my own agenda item. Ong believes text outshines the oral work in it's concreteness-- the written word can endure lifetimes whereas the spoken word can dissipate and waiver over time, from mouth to ear and back again.
Sometimes it's difficult to find peers who make me think of the daily reading's in a different way. What I am noticing is that the class agrees on the majority of the points each of us pose about the material. Chris discussed the fact that Cicero relied on Tiro to legitimize his work, the opposite train of thought Plato had, where his Socrates believed that writing was unintelligent due to the lack of interaction between the reader and the author. What Chris said brought me back to my own thoughts about the DiRenzo piece in relation to today's world. I mentioned how simply being a writer in today's world is usually not enough to gain a respectful, secure job. In Cicero and Tiro's time, Tiro was a rare find because he could scribe with such skill and speed. Writing for Cicero helped to solidify his points, which ensures the correctness of his words.
Jeremy's entry made me think of where the world would be today if writing's importance was never realized. We'd be incredibly unorganized in our daily lives, and the country would suffer from chaos, I'm sure. DiRenzo discusses how writing spread to all aspects of life-- the government could keep track of laws and court cases, calendars were widely used, and signs were everywhere. Where Plato once thought that the world had no use for writing, Cicero's generation was bombarded by writing out of necessity so much that if one were illiterate it was thought that they would be unable to survive.
Page 321:
"Although we take writing so much for granted as to forget that it is a technology, writing is in a way the most drastic of the three technologies of the word. It initiated what printing and electronics only continued, the physical reduction of dynamic sound to quiescent space, the separation of the word from the living present, where alone real, spoken words exist."
Quiescent means still, dormant, or motionless. I found this to be very true and something I never realized because I do take writing for granted. In this statement Ong disproves Socrates' belief that speaking is less intelligent than writing. Ong continues in saying that although words are indeed dead, they live on in their concreteness. This reminds me of the topic Jeremy and I agreed on when we disagreed with Socrates (I know it's actually Plato, I still can't help but think it's Socrates words though. Is that weird?) stance on speaking versus writing. Speech has a way of getting lost in translation when carried on through many people. Ong even goes as far as saying that that text has more potential than the spoken word because of it's permanence, its "rigid visual fixity."
He does make the counterpoint in saying that for any text to be truly successful it must be converted into sound, either within ourselves or in the outside world. Hmm...
From page six of "His Master's Voice":
For convenience, certain abbreviations were used in monuments, most famously “S.P.Q.R.,” Senatus Populusque Romanus: the Senate and People of Rome. Other formulaic abbreviations evolved in private and public correspondence, such as “S.v.b.e.v.,” Si vales, bene est, valeo: If you are well, all is right; I am well. These were hardly standardized.
Yet again the transition from oral to written culture reminds me of the shift from print to digital. When reading my chosen agenda item for the first time, three prominent letters flashed in my mind.
Those letters are almost certainly the answer to the question, "what word do you overuse online?" in those goofy surveys we all used to take religiously:
L-O-L
I suppose LOL is an abbreviation which symbolizes an action moreso than it actually stands for "laughing out loud." Who says that anyway? Before LOL came about I never typed out the phrase it stands for. "Haha" is much more effective, I'd say.
Anyway...
One of my other thoughts came near the beginning of this piece, where DiRenzo states that proficient scribes were considered to be so precious that they were eligible for life-long government jobs. No matter what point in history, government jobs were and are considered extremely respectable in every society. How I wish I could become employed by the White House simply because I can write. Heck, I'd even provide my own paper and pen (rollerball, not reed, please).
David's entry on this piece was similar to my thoughts in the sense that he feels Socrates dislikes the lack of interaction the written word has in comparison to listening to a speaker. Socrates felt oral communication was more intelligent due to this interaction. He compares the written word to a painting, it has the potential to express, communicate, and teach, but it lacks the ability to answer any questions or provide clarity to the audience.
David did touch on something that enlightened me somewhat to Socrates ego. Perhaps Socrates was afraid of being forgotten. As Leslie brought up in her entry though, it is a bit hypocritical of Socrates to allow Plato to write this conversation.
Jeremy also brought a new train of thought to my attention on this topic. Socrates believed oral communication is more intelligent, we all touched on this, however Jeremy made a point in saying that oral communication can be skewed much more easily than the written word which has permanence. Therefore that would make oral communication much less intelligent.
From page 362 of "Writing Material":
"I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a questions to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. And when they have been once written down they are tumbled about anywhere among those who may or may not understand them, and know not to whom they should reply, to whom not: and, if they are maltreated or abused, they have no parent to protect them; and they cannot protect of defend themselves." -Socrates
Compared to the spoken word, Socrates felt that the written word was a less intelligent form of art. He likened writing to paintings, even going so far as to call words images themselves. This is a completely new concept of looking at writing for me. I can absolutely agree with the point Socrates was driving home in this pleasantly sincere and educational debate. I feel Socrates is trying to say that although writing is useful for recording memories and reminiscing about the past, it is not a good educational tool. He compares writing to astronomy and mathematics-- subjects that have to be carefully studied by observation, repetition, and instruction. The subject of writing cannot be taught directly because there are endless topics to be written about and endless styles of writing. Socrates believed the oral word was much more effective because the speaker is on hand to answer any questions.
That was one claim I found to be a bit confusing. Who is Socrates to say the text will not answer potential questions the reader may have on later pages? Who is he to say that a book teaching Geometry is less effective than an instructor orally teaching a class? I think Socrates is being very narrow minded here. He should take into account the fact that people have different methods of learning which work better for them.
Or perhaps I'm reading this all wrong. Philosophers always tend to befuddle me.