My notes on Ong

vocabulary
noetic= of or relating to intellect (of the mind)
chirographic = associated with handwriting
mnenonic = assisting the memory

Page 19: main points
1.within high-technology cultures, literacy is essential and presents itself as “natural”
2.illiteracy is often thought of as the lack of a simple mechanical skill (like tying one’s shoes, or driving a car) => this is an incorrect understanding of language
3.we think in terms of writing & for the most part we are unaware of how writing shapes our thought

page 20
1.literate individuals have a fused awareness of words both as what they stand for (or signify) and the written symbols used to represent them (what is signified) [for more discussion of the two parts of words see Semiotics for Beginners http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem02.html
2. oral cultures use formulaic structures as mnemonic devises
3.exploratory thinking is difficult and infrequent in oral cultures

page 21
Ong reviews Plato’s characterization of writing in Phaedrus http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html - and discusses parallels between Plato’s criticisms of writing/books and modern criticisms of computer technologies
summary of plato’s charges against writing
1. writing is inhuman (an object) and cannot be what in fact can only exist in the human mind
2. written texts are unresponsive
3. writing weakens memory
4. the written word cannot defend itself/speak

page 22
Ong points out the irony/failure of Plato’s argument by pointing out that “[Plato’s] philosophically analytic thought, including his analysis of the effects of writing, wass possible only because of the effects that writing [has] on mental processes. We know that totally oral peoples. . .are incapable of the protracted, intensive linear analysis that we have from Plato’s Socrates.

Section III: sets forward Ong’s statement /proof that writing, like computers – is a technology.

Section IV: writing ensures endurance – and creates “potential s far outdistancing those of the simply spoken word” (23)

Page 23
native speakers regularly use their spoken languge without knowledge of its grammar
argues that not everyone learns to write (eg. Ong does not embrace theories that written language is as biologically based as spoken language) => writing is artificial in a way that speech is not
writing is a usesful technology that is artificial and exterior - it allows us distance from our thought

page 24 - 29
Section VII - identifies influences of writing on thought

1. writing separates the known from the knower (allows you to see your thoughts outside of your self). . .”Between knower and known writing interposes a visible and tangible object, the text” (25).

2. writing separated interpretation of data from the data themselves

3. writing distances the word from the sound => translates aural to visual (according to biological theories this is NOT the case; biological theories would state that writing translates THOUGHT not aural sounds into visual signifiers)

4. writing allows communication to take place when communicants are physically separated

5. writing allows meanings to move across and away from the places where they were created (can place a record of talk in a new context)

6. because writing loses so the meanings provided by the contexts attached to talk – it has become more “precise” => or at least has a need to provide more background, content etc than spoken language

7. writing separates past from present

8. writing created “administration” => the abstract structures for organizing/governing groups (Scribner and Cole disagree with this claim – as well as many other claims made by Ong)

9. writing makes it possible to separate logic from persuasion (allows for a higher more complex degree of abstraction(many language theorists disagree with this)

10. writing separates academic learning from wisdom (this makes no sense to me)

11. writing creates dominant versus non-dominant, mainstream versus nonmainstream ways for communicating (new literacies scholars + many social language theorists disagree with this)

12. writing creates “grapholects” => written dialects like academic writing, texting conventions etc

13. writing moves thought toward the rational (left hemisphere of the brain) and away from the felt, intuitive, imagistic (right hemispher of the brain) –what do you think?

14. writing has made philosophic thought possible (again, scribner and cole disagree with this vigorously)

page 29 – 30
Section VIII: in this section Ong draws parallels between how writing changed thinking – and how the computer is “doing it again”

XI final point (30-31)
computer technologies can correct for the bias and “chirographic squint” that writing imposes

=> in plain English: the increased distance imposed by computer technologies can allow for increased reflection (a better chance at the big picture) which will allow us to recover the “full meaning” available interpersonal