Re: Media / Oral Literacy
Brad, I too suspect that we are closer on these issues then it seems. Rather a matter of syllabic emphasis. Your's is more academic with mine seeming at least to be more from the practical practice. I don't appoint a hierarchy to either nor do I mean to say that I'm not academic or you are impractical. Instead I feel it to be a point of emphasis.. Consider, 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've used the book for years in my teaching but the book beginsnot with the analysis of literature but a discussion of performers and performance. The act of per-form-ing is a synergistic dialogue that transcends the particulate linearity of literacy. Most societies that developed literacy, especially the glyphic ones, did not want to develop forgetfulness or lose the holistic nature of verbal performance dialogue. Just as we still teach arithmetic to children instead of simply using calculators, they had rules for what was written down and what was only committed to memory. Plagues and Diasporas elevated literacy because of the fragility of the lives of the rememberers. I come from a society that brought out that process only in the 1830s due to the pressure of European society on our culture. We did not want to lose everything. So we wrote it down but in a new syllabury that not everyone could read. 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. One might consider the poems of Robert Lowell on theone side with e.e. cummings on the other. 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. An interesting metaphor. I'm not really sure what it meantto the Greeks. Now the people have an encyclopedia, and it's not "cost effctive" for people to either learn the craft or listen to its practice. I don't understand this either. The theater, movies, operasare all alive. The issue is not the "encyclopedia" (creative material) but the performance of such. Live versus "canned." Movies are productive in the economic value sense, while operas are not. Small rock ensembles can play to big crowds with technological enhancements. That makes money, symphony orchestras do not. It seems much more about economics than the value of the encyclopedia. Anyway it is not the same in Europe. They still perform the encyclopedia live and on stage. They used to hire America's performers to perform their works after WW II. Even Germany. Now they have grown their own and American performers have no place to go to perfect their craft. Another point (among many): Literacy brings the advent of "objective history". Nonsense!Where? Texts change much less fluidly than oral culture, So do scientific ideal states, but they don't exist in reality. That does not however, keep them from being useful. I suggest the same for written language. False but useful. 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. In Tenochtitlan, they didn't hesitate to change the writtentext but if you changed a word or missed a pitch or rhythm in the performance, you were fodder for the Gods. They took their verbal history seriously. You seem to be equating reality with Europe. A problem with literacy. 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. In my experience with students and professionalperformers, there is little preparation in the schools for something as simple as defining the distinctions between word stresses. I was pleasantly surprised to read that Murray Gell-Mann (The Quark
Re: Media / Oral Literacy
-- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Media / Oral Literacy Date: Mon, Jul 5, 1999, 4:40 PM 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. Brad wrote: 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. Thomas: Yes but! Notice, that the while the "yes" agrees, the "but" negates. These technologies are far from easy to use or even in some cases to own. But the point I was making - perhaps not clearly, is that the message is time specific as decided by the sender. For example, if I sit down to read a book, I can skim, study, reread and my reading speed is under my control. Not only is the speed under my control, but so is the space, I can read in the bathroom, on the bus, in bed, before breakfast, while this versatility is often not possible to listening and watching technologies. While if I listen to you talk, the message speed is under your control, I cannot speed up your message. I also have to be available when you, or the program is being played. (or have the technological skills and capabilities, plus the equipment to store said information) 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. Brad wrote: 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) Thomas: That is true but (again), I defy you to comprehend or explain the drawing without using words, either internally to yourself or externally to another. 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. Brad wrote: 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
Re: Media / Oral Literacy
Hi: My thanks to Thomas Lunde, Brad McCormick and Ray Harrell for commenting on my post. One important point that I didn't spell out - and which most people realize - concerns the absolute necessity of the written word for complex subjects. Without the ability to review, word-for-word, as needed, most non-fiction would be incomprehensible. I can't imagine anyone listening to audio tapes of Descartes, Advanced Algebra or Against Economics - or any of a hundred thousand other books and papers - and understanding them. A second point that I think needs emphasis, is that in a world where reading literacy is not universal and where the media is literally owned by a few with their own agenda, we would find it very difficult to convince anyone but each other of our convictions. To do so, we would have to revert to a time a century and more ago when the "workers of the world" were almost convinced to unite primarily by the oratory of their leaders. This was augmented by night schools, lecture series, pamphleteering and rallies. At that time the laboring class had a greater interest in their own welfare and destiny than they have today. I fear that if reading and writing literacy should go down the TV drain, we would all need Ray Harrell's coaching to reach out to the world :-) . Ray Harrell concluded his post with the following statement: "Without a serious grammar that is more inclusive English writing is a poor substitute for sound." I'm not sure of the relationship here and, perhaps, Ray could expand upon it. Writing is a poor substitute for sound - until one becomes a consummate reader and a multimedia world explodes inside your head - but this is for fiction, drama and poetry only, not for complex material. There is a problem and several people reading the same passage can come to different conclusions, but this has mainly to do with abstract nouns and their definition which, too often, differs from person to person. I don't see where either oral emphasis or a more inclusive grammar will help. Robert ___ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Re: Media / Oral Literacy
Thomas Lunde wrote: -- [snip] In my opinion, there has been very little intelligent follow-up by academics, whether mainstream or creative on McLuhan's work. And yet, I believe it is/was the single most creative piece of analysis done in the 20th century. Far outweighing Jung, Freud or any of our other so called pyschological thinkers. As to the philosphers, I find most of their speculations grand science fiction dressed up in dubious logic and fancy vocabulary, often of their own invention. I would beg to differ. McLuhan was surely a kind of genius, but his ideas can be traced backward and forward. In my opinion, his main contribution (and I do agree it is a very important one!) was to popularize it. Alas, we still need many more such "popularizers", for McLuhan's message has not yet -- in my opinion -- sunk into our society. Thomas Kuhn, Norwood Hanson and (in a different disciplinary area) Harold Innis are a few names which come to my mind. Then there is Gregory Bateson. Edmund Husserl's work (and the work of those who have continued to carry it on) is probably the most deeply thought out of all. Freud seems to have been torn between hermeneutics (understanding human experience "from the inside" in terms of its lived meaning as irreducible) and brain-physics (reducing experience to an epiphenomenon of that particular domain of the contents of experience which we call "neurophysiology" -- the logical absurdity of this aspiration should be obvious, but it isn't). [snip] As the following article indicates, perhaps two thousand years of church and academic scholars have completely missed the main message in the Iliad and yet perhaps, if an Albanian or Serb from a rural village had have been asked their opinion, many of them still very oral in their sensorium and culture, an answer that indicated the truth of the following story might have been found much sooner - but then what does a peasant know? Well, that's my rant. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde From: Mark Graffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Danny Fagandini [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Financial Times Weekend Section 20.6.99 page 1 Could the 'Iliad' be more than just a story - a stellar guidebook, in fact? Christian Tyler tracks the ancient heroes across the heavens Generations of scholars and students have pored over Homer's Iliad. They have admired the vigour of its language and relished the descriptions of fighting and smiting. And if this ancient epic has sometimes seemed overpopulated, inconclusive and strangely narrow in its focus, that could always be put down to the rude ignorance of antiquity. But, according to Florence and Kenneth Wood, we have all been missing the point. The Iliad, they say, is not just a story. It is a stellar guidebook, a poetic encryption of ancient geography and an astronomical record. [snip] I think the line of scholarship from Walter Lord thru Walter Ong (et al.) would say that, whether or not the above is true, the Iliad was the Library of Congress of the early Greeks, and if it mapped to the starry constellations, that would be primarily just one more "check" on its faithful transmission by the generations of bards who composed it (in both senses: (1) producing, and (2) constituting the elements of). "Yours in discourse" \brad mccormick -- 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/
Re: Media / Oral Literacy
-- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: Media / Oral Literacy
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 -- 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/
Re: Media / Oral Literacy
I've been away so I'm not sure whether this is old turf or not on this issue. 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. As far as information is concerned there is a different connotation for every single word that is stressed by the voice in a sentence. 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. In otherwords I find Brad's comment about the place of non-literate people to be hopelessly literacy bound. Has anyone brought up Leonard Schlain's book on this titled "The Alphabet Versus The Goddess" Viking Press? Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble of New York, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
