Ray E. Harrell wrote:
>
> I've been away so I'm not sure whether this is old turf or not
> on this issue.
(Ditto)
>
> 1. As a performing artist who deals with the meaning of words
> on the stage I find literacy useful in three ways.
> a. as a substitute for a poor memory
> b. as a way of transmitting rudimentary information
> over a distance or hiding information from an "enemy."
> c. as a separate art form that contains its own rules
> apart from every day life and emotion. I put the
> internet in this last catagory.
These are, of course, contentious issues. The argument has been
strongly put forward that literacy changes persons' mode
of oral behavior and the inner experience thereof
(see, e.g.: Singer of Tales (Harvard Studies in Comparative
Literature, 24) Albert Bates Lord / Paperback / Published 1981 --
I confess to not having read this book but only reading
*about* it in Walter Ong's writings). When literacy
"infects" a society, the craft of the poet changes
radically. Previously, his tales (e.g., the Iliad) were
the encyclopedia of the people, and the integrity of this
information was protected by long apprenticeship and complex
mettical (etc.) patterning of the material. Now the people
have an encyclopedia, and it's not "cost effctive" for people
to either learn the craft or listen to its practice. Another
point (among many): Literacy brings the advent of "objective
history". Texts change much less fluidly than oral culture,
and, in a primary oral culture, one did no9t need a Stalin
to rewrite history, because the poets always knew which
way the wind was blowing, and anything that dropped out of the
poetry the poets sang was irretrievably gone. Ets.
>
> As far as information is concerned there is a different
> connotation for every single word that is stressed by
> the voice in a sentence.
Of course, and I will agree with you that a lot of
people who know how to read and write don't pay
attention to these crucial aspects of our comunicative
life.
> Writing as it is currently defined
> is hopeless. English "grammar" is not built upon the stress
> values of English but is left over from the archaic study of
> Latin. Without a serious grammar that is more inclusive
> English writing is a poor substitute for sound.
Thank you for bringing up this point. I agree with you, and
I have proposed a solution:
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/sgmlnote.html
>
> In otherwords I find Brad's comment about the place of
> non-literate people to be hopelessly literacy bound.
This may be true, but I have made serious efforts over
15 years to become aware of the issues here.
>
> Has anyone brought up Leonard Schlain's book on
> this titled "The Alphabet Versus The Goddess"
> Viking Press?
I do not know it. Walter Lord's book, just about
anything by Milman Parry or Walter Ong or Eric Havelock
is probably far more worth allocating a bit of one's
so short life time to.
I hope we "pretty much agree with each other". I strongly
urge the primary of face-to-face speech, e.g.,
a mother's early words with her infant, as the
foundation of all more abstract cultural achievements.
And if ever that foundation gets lost (which it easily
could in the all too well fundable social engineering
projects of "cognitive scientists" et al.), that will
be the end of civilization and humanity.
>
> Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
> The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble of New York, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best wishes! Yours in discourse!
\brad mccormick
>
> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
>
> > Thomas Lunde wrote:
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > >From: Robert Rosenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that the thrust of all this, if it continues, is away from
> > > > a society in which everybody is (should be) reading and writing literate
> > > > to one in which the overwhelming majority will be culturally-content with
> > > > their daily entertainments (movies, sitcoms, music videos, award shows,
> > > > specials), and manufactured news bits. In such a situation, there will be
> > > > a privatization of knowledge, owned by the few and used for the benefit
> > > > of the few - which is almost the situation, now.
> > >
> > > Thomas:
> > >
> > > A couple of thoughts on the above paragraph. Most listening, watching
> > > technologies are time specific.
> >
> > But not all. Your can freeze-frame and replay as often as you wish
> > a VCR or audio tape, or, a fortiori, a laser disk.
> >
> > > Though you have mentioned several times the
> > > attribute of being able to listen while doing something else, I would
> > > comment that retention, reflection and musing get lost as the data stream
> > > continues uninterruped. The minute you take your attention from the TV,
> > > radio or other media, there is no going back to catch what was missed. It
> > > is much like riding on a train. As long as you sit at the window looking
> > > out, you can see the current scenery, but you can't replay that which has
> > > just went past, nor recapture that which happened while you glanced away or
> > > left your seat for a minute. The strength of reading as learning
> > > information medium is that you can go back and re-read or compare with other
> > > information and reflect on the juxtaposition of thought that has been
> > > presented.
> > >
> > > Similarly, with speaking. It is a spontaneous event, unless speaking from
> > > something memorized. For most people, speaking is not prethought, it is
> > > just a reflex action and the speaker is often surprised or delighted or
> > > ashamed of what came out of his mouth as is the listener. Also, speaking
> > > limits vocabulary to approx 5000 common words in the language.
> >
> > This may be true in a primary oral society, but literate persons should
> > be able to deploy their larger vocabulary in secondary orality.
> >
> > > While
> > > writing allows a greater vocabulary and language more specifically used.
> > > Writing, focus's the communicator specifically on his message, allows
> > > complex themes to be developed, fosters rational thought and specificity
> > > rather than the generalizations commonly used when speaking.
> >
> > Yes, but.... Consider the architect or engineer designing something.
> > Words, whether spoken or written, would be hard pressed to substitute
> > for "mechanical drawing" and/or freehand drawing, etc. (See William
> > Ivins, _Prints and Visual Communication_, MIT Press)
> >
> > > A large part
> > > of this is dealt with in great depth by Marshal McLuhan and his observations
> > > that TV and radio represent a sensory change from visual (reading and
> > > writing) to an oral society, which most of prehistory and history up until
> > > Guttenburg operated in. Oral societies are often tribal, ruled by emotion
> > > and passion, foster different lifestyles and focus on different aspects of
> > > reality than a visual society.
> >
> > Perhaps it is more accurate to say that persons in primary oral
> > cultures live in a *different reality* (See, e.g, Julian Jaynes,
> > _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral
> > Mind_, Houghton Mifflin). I think it is an open question
> > the extent to which primary oral persons *are* persons in the way
> > educated literate persons -- esp. after Descartes, Kant, etc. --
> > conceive of ourselves. Speculation: primary oral "people" may
> > have a form of existence somewhere between that of higher apes and us.
> > The ancient Greek notion that the line demarcating the human from
> > the non-human does not run along a species boundary, but rather
> > runs through a single biological species may be worth thinking
> > about.
> >
> > > According to McLuhan, media shape the
> > > sensorium of individuals and his major theme was that we are creating new
> > > media which is reshaping the majority of the populations sensory intake
> > > which will have the effect of changing society in ways that are totally
> > > different from political philosophy's, economic theories and cultures.
> >
> > One form of "change" is ceasing to be.... What might the
> > ultimate outcome of the present ever-accelerating speeding-up of
> > everything (etc.) be? Conversely, what if we conceived of ourselves
> > and others more as interpreting perspectives upon the world and
> > less as predefined objects in a pre-given world (which is how a lot of
> > us think a lot of the time)?
> >
> > Just some thoughts....
> >
> > \brad mccormick
[snip]
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[SGML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
