DIVINE MEMORY

"The soul's remarkable power of remembering things and words is proof of its divinity"  
(Yates 45)

In class yesterday Dr. Sexson explained why our memories make up our very being, and to take them away would equate with murder. According to Yates, Cicero held the "Platonic and Pythagorean position that the soul is immortal and of divine origin" (44), and that the soul is largely based upon its ability to remember. At this point in the text Yates explores the ways in which religion and memory are intertwined, an idea that I find particularly interesting.

As members of a literate society, it is difficult to think of religion without thinking of sacred texts, especially if one has been raised in congregations based upon the Lutheran doctrine of "the word alone". Many modern religious sects advocate devout individual study of the Bible. This contrasts to older religious gatherings based upon the tradition of oral sermons as a means of enlightenment. How do the different forms of study affect worshippers? As Father Ong says, "Oral communication unites people in groups. Writing and reading are solitary activities that throw the psyche back on itself" (68). While studying Yates and Ong concurrently, the reader is prompted to reflect upon the effectiveness and implications of the written vs. the spoken word. Although modern Christianity is based upon textual evidence, "God is thought of as 'speaking' to human beings, not as writing to them" (74). Are people more empowered by the strengthening of their memories through the oral tradition or by the study of literature and expanding their recollective (as separate from memory) abilities? Is one of the two traditions superior to the other, or is it a matter of them being additive and aggregative vs. subordinative and analytic?

Ong presents a balanced view,

"without writing, human consciousness cannot achieve its fuller potentials, cannot produce other beautiful and powerful creations. In this sense, orality needs to produce and is destined to produce writing" (14).

According to this logic, it is not necessary to take either form to extremes, because they complement each other. If one is to be a true scholar of the modern world, be it religious or academic, it is advantageous to become well versed in both traditions. The oral tradition promotes mental processes that are integral to our past, while the exploration of literature serves as a catalyst for the development of our future.

I was not raised in a very religious setting, so I am curious to hear if anyone in the class who was has any thoughts on the effects of the written vs. the spoken word in the case of sacred texts...