Monday, April 9, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
ONG, in conclusion
"Writing introduces division and alienation, but a higher unity as well. It intensifies the sense of self and fosters more conscious interaction between persons. Writing is consciousness raising" (Ong 175).
Throughout his book Ong has explored the ways in which Orality has influenced literacy; and in his final chapter he informs the reader of the timing and various degrees this has occurred in literary history. His evidence lies in written texts, and the various degrees to which those texts reflect the orality of the culture at that time. He asserts that most writers during the medieval era "continued the classical practice of writing their literary works to be read aloud", based upon their "always rhetorical style as well as the nature of plot and characterization" (154-5). He states that oral residue lingers in the literature of the Renaissance to a large degree, and does not see a true decline until the age of Romanticism in the late 18th century. The most effective way to summarize this shift in authorial thought, is that writers in the lingering oral culture wrote for an audience (i.e. they meant for their work to be read aloud), while writers of the literary tradition write for an objectified hypotheses. 
As a student of literature, I found the the discussion of texts as isolated objects to be the most engaging section of this chapter. I have had several classes that have debated the extent to which authorial intent should be considered while conducting literary analysis, and it seems to be a highly controversial issue. According to the prevailing modern school of New Criticism, texts should be considered as separate entities from their authors, or "verbal icons" (157). In a similar vein of thought, the school of Russian Formalism tends to "minimize or eliminate from criticism any concern with the poem's 'message', 'sources', 'history', or relationship to the biography of its author" (158). This is where oral and literate cultures differ, orators do not have the luxury of isolating themselves from their work. I personally enjoy studying texts in an iconic fashion, it tends to simplify the process when one needs to make an argument in the academic environment. However, I do recognize that this is not always possible, and many texts cannot be understood outside of their time period without some background knowledge. But regardless of thoughts on authorial intent, there is no denying that orality continues to influence interiorized thought, in its various forms. No matter how far we progress into the typographic world, there will always be some lingering oral residue. Orality and literacy are not separate from each other, but two parts that form a whole. As father Ong concludes in his book,
"Orality-literacy dynamics enter integrally into the modern evolution of consciousness toward both greater interiorization and greater openness" (176).
Monday, February 27, 2012
SUBLIMINAL MEMORIZING
"We must assiduously remember the invisible joys of paradise and the eternal torments of hell"
- Bocompagno (Yates 93)
In the fourth chapter of Art of Memory, Yates explores the history of imagery development during the medieval era. I found this to be the most engaging chapter we have read thus far (in either Yates or Ong) because of the encompassing nature of her discussion on memorable imagery within the religious context. Yates says "later memory treatises in the scholastic tradition usually include remembering Paradise and Hell, frequently with diagrams of those places, as belonging to artificial memory"(94), proposing that post medieval academic work on mnemonic techniques serves as evidence for the use of memory palaces in the religious setting. She adds, "This introduces the novel idea that the places of Hell, varied in accordance with the nature of sins punished in them, could be regarded as variegated memory loci" (94).
What I gathered from Yates' discourse on the matter is that learned religious men of the medieval era used visual cues as a way to supplement their teachings. After reflection upon that notion, its logic becomes more and more apparent. During the age of scholasticism, the foundations of Christian doctrine remained essentially the same, but they became much more complex. This was particularly true in regards to the virtue-vice scheme which was made famous in the era's literature (i.e. morality plays). Due to this increase in information,
"The moral man who wished to choose the path of virtue, whilst also remembering and avoiding vice, had more to imprint on his memory than earlier and simpler times" (84).
As a result, memory techniques became necessary as a means to remember the era's new database of theological knowledge. It was during this era that the Dominican Order of the Preachers was founded, whose main object was to deliver powerful sermons that would lure audiences into religious obedience through increasing their memory. It was during said oratories that the "medieval transformation of the artificial memory would have been chiefly used" (85). The most effective method that the preacher would have used would be to clearly delineate the attributes of virtue and vice and reinforce the repercussions of choosing either path.
It is easy for the audiences of religious sermons to blend information together due to their monotonous nature when compared to the grotesque, carnal imagery that is so easily remembered by the human mind. As Thomas Aquinas cogently explains, "spiritual and simple intentions slip easily from the soul unless they are linked with certain corporeal similitudes" (83). Religious orators of the medieval era were able to enhance the power of their teachings by employing visual mnemonic techniques as originally described in the classical text, Ad Herennium, and later expounded by the great "Professors of Memory" (102). Clear, well-lit memory theaters of Heaven and Hell were laid out for sermon audiences, and memorable images of the consequences for disobedience were strategically placed in the houses of worship.
- Bocompagno (Yates 93)
 |
| Memory Palaces - Heaven and Hell |
What I gathered from Yates' discourse on the matter is that learned religious men of the medieval era used visual cues as a way to supplement their teachings. After reflection upon that notion, its logic becomes more and more apparent. During the age of scholasticism, the foundations of Christian doctrine remained essentially the same, but they became much more complex. This was particularly true in regards to the virtue-vice scheme which was made famous in the era's literature (i.e. morality plays). Due to this increase in information,
"The moral man who wished to choose the path of virtue, whilst also remembering and avoiding vice, had more to imprint on his memory than earlier and simpler times" (84).
As a result, memory techniques became necessary as a means to remember the era's new database of theological knowledge. It was during this era that the Dominican Order of the Preachers was founded, whose main object was to deliver powerful sermons that would lure audiences into religious obedience through increasing their memory. It was during said oratories that the "medieval transformation of the artificial memory would have been chiefly used" (85). The most effective method that the preacher would have used would be to clearly delineate the attributes of virtue and vice and reinforce the repercussions of choosing either path.
 |
| Nardo de Cione, Florence Chapel, 14th century |
Thursday, February 23, 2012
PAPERBACK WRITER
"By separating the knower from the known, writing makes possible increasingly articulate introspectivity, opening the psyche as never before not only to the external objective world quite distinct from itself but also to the interior self against whom the objective world is set" (Ong 104).
This quote resonated with me because it is the best description I have found of what is accomplished through the chirographic/typographic process. Oftentimes, I learn more about myself by examining my own writing than any other method.This is especially true if I venture beyond the constraints of academic discourse, into the realm of creativity where it is possible to outrun the critic of my own self-conscious psyche. When speaking, one is generally limited to the expression of the ideologies and characteristics hardwired into their brains. Through the process of writing, the individual is enabled to isolate their thoughts as discrete items to be reflected upon and improved.
As Jennifer of the Falling Waters mentions in her blog, Plato was against writing because of its threat to the structural integrity of the human mind. Taking that notion into regard, I concluded noted that orality aids literacy, yet literacy does not hinder orality. When memorizing my 51 lines of Shakespeare, I found that the only way to get images to truly stick was to come up with grotesque, abstract, and totally unrealistic imagery (i.e., a worm man squeezing out of a lotion bottle). In retrospect, I do not know if it would be possible to come up with such abstract imagery if one's mind was not sharpened by the critical skills of the literate world. Ong mentioned earlier in his book that those living in truly oral cultures have no use for abstract concepts outside the realm of practicality. Could the feral children discussed in Megan's blog imagine such impractical concepts in a world revolving around how to hunt down their next meal?
Beyond the more its obvious benefits (having a literature), literacy also aids our orality. If used correctly, the skills learned through our own writing can help us to become better masters of oral rhetoric.
This quote resonated with me because it is the best description I have found of what is accomplished through the chirographic/typographic process. Oftentimes, I learn more about myself by examining my own writing than any other method.This is especially true if I venture beyond the constraints of academic discourse, into the realm of creativity where it is possible to outrun the critic of my own self-conscious psyche. When speaking, one is generally limited to the expression of the ideologies and characteristics hardwired into their brains. Through the process of writing, the individual is enabled to isolate their thoughts as discrete items to be reflected upon and improved.
As Jennifer of the Falling Waters mentions in her blog, Plato was against writing because of its threat to the structural integrity of the human mind. Taking that notion into regard, I concluded noted that orality aids literacy, yet literacy does not hinder orality. When memorizing my 51 lines of Shakespeare, I found that the only way to get images to truly stick was to come up with grotesque, abstract, and totally unrealistic imagery (i.e., a worm man squeezing out of a lotion bottle). In retrospect, I do not know if it would be possible to come up with such abstract imagery if one's mind was not sharpened by the critical skills of the literate world. Ong mentioned earlier in his book that those living in truly oral cultures have no use for abstract concepts outside the realm of practicality. Could the feral children discussed in Megan's blog imagine such impractical concepts in a world revolving around how to hunt down their next meal?
Beyond the more its obvious benefits (having a literature), literacy also aids our orality. If used correctly, the skills learned through our own writing can help us to become better masters of oral rhetoric.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
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...
(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...
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
SOCIOLOGY OF RHETORIC
"Thus, as in most cases, art originates from experience" (Yates 22).
After completing Foer's entertaining narrative of his own experience with memory training, it is interesting to read the more academic oriented Art of Memory. I just finished the first chapter, in which Yates introduces the classical foundations of the art. Both authors describe the importance of the Rhetorica Ad Herennium, the oldest surviving Latin book on Rhetoric. The author considers memory to be an essential part of the effective orator's arsenal, "Now let us turn to the treasure-house of inventions, the custodian of all parts of rhetoric, memory" (Yates 5).
At the time of its publication, oratory was viewed by many as a powerful political tool that should be kept in the possession of the Greek-speaking upper classes. By publishing the text in Latin, the unknown author contributed to what could be considered a liberal-populist movement. After doing some research in Google scholar, I ran into an interesting piece by Patrick Sinclair of Northwestern University, in which he explores the ways in which the text serves as an "opportunity for self-invention for the would-be statesman"(561). He asserts that if a lower-class citizen could emulate the language of his superiors, then he would be on his way to overcoming social disadvantage and adopting the views traditionally canonical to them. According to Sinclair's analysis, the main interest of the author was in judicial oratory, where "a well-born and well-connected Roman could win the sort of distinction and form the sort of social alliances necessary for realizing his social and political ambitions"(563).
Roman orators could "best others by cleverly manipulating general, shared concepts"(568), similar to the way modern mental athletes win championships by designing new memory systems. It appears as though in classical Roman society, a strong memory was an essential tool to gaining political and social prestige. Unfortunately for Foer, this is not the case in today's society. In a world where we can easily lean on external memory crutches, one gains little recognition for winning memory championships. However, Foer is able to realize that
"memory training is not just for the sake of performing party tricks; it's about nurturing something profoundly and essentially human" (270).
We have outrun our own programming with the advances of modern technology. Our brains are hardwired to support powerful recollection systems based off of spatial data, which is why the memory palace is such an effective tool for storing large amounts of information. The hardware is present, all one needs to do is install the software to run it. There is no longer the motivation of advancement to sustain our memory training, "But in the ancient world, devoid of printing, without paper for note-taking or on which to type lectures, the trained memory was of vital importance" (Yates 4). What if this trend advances to the point that we rely solely on external memory storage, and that spider-web breaks down?
Sincalir, Patrick. The Sententia in Rhetorica ad Herennium: A Study in the Sociology of Rhetoric. The American Journal of Philogy, Vol. 114. p. 561-580. 1993.
After completing Foer's entertaining narrative of his own experience with memory training, it is interesting to read the more academic oriented Art of Memory. I just finished the first chapter, in which Yates introduces the classical foundations of the art. Both authors describe the importance of the Rhetorica Ad Herennium, the oldest surviving Latin book on Rhetoric. The author considers memory to be an essential part of the effective orator's arsenal, "Now let us turn to the treasure-house of inventions, the custodian of all parts of rhetoric, memory" (Yates 5).At the time of its publication, oratory was viewed by many as a powerful political tool that should be kept in the possession of the Greek-speaking upper classes. By publishing the text in Latin, the unknown author contributed to what could be considered a liberal-populist movement. After doing some research in Google scholar, I ran into an interesting piece by Patrick Sinclair of Northwestern University, in which he explores the ways in which the text serves as an "opportunity for self-invention for the would-be statesman"(561). He asserts that if a lower-class citizen could emulate the language of his superiors, then he would be on his way to overcoming social disadvantage and adopting the views traditionally canonical to them. According to Sinclair's analysis, the main interest of the author was in judicial oratory, where "a well-born and well-connected Roman could win the sort of distinction and form the sort of social alliances necessary for realizing his social and political ambitions"(563).Roman orators could "best others by cleverly manipulating general, shared concepts"(568), similar to the way modern mental athletes win championships by designing new memory systems. It appears as though in classical Roman society, a strong memory was an essential tool to gaining political and social prestige. Unfortunately for Foer, this is not the case in today's society. In a world where we can easily lean on external memory crutches, one gains little recognition for winning memory championships. However, Foer is able to realize that
"memory training is not just for the sake of performing party tricks; it's about nurturing something profoundly and essentially human" (270).
We have outrun our own programming with the advances of modern technology. Our brains are hardwired to support powerful recollection systems based off of spatial data, which is why the memory palace is such an effective tool for storing large amounts of information. The hardware is present, all one needs to do is install the software to run it. There is no longer the motivation of advancement to sustain our memory training, "But in the ancient world, devoid of printing, without paper for note-taking or on which to type lectures, the trained memory was of vital importance" (Yates 4). What if this trend advances to the point that we rely solely on external memory storage, and that spider-web breaks down?
Sincalir, Patrick. The Sententia in Rhetorica ad Herennium: A Study in the Sociology of Rhetoric. The American Journal of Philogy, Vol. 114. p. 561-580. 1993.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)