** Hi my name is Samantha Clanton and I accessed Sutter's blog because I'm jealous that he has a blog and I wanted to blog about something I thought might have some relevance to the class. **
Even though I am not in the Oral Traditions class I cannot help but see things that I would blog about if I were in the class. I don't know what you have been discussing, but I was reading chapter one, From Folklore to Technology, from the book The Origin of Writing by Roy Harris for Dr. Lynda Sexson's class Text and Image. I couldn't help but want to blog some of what I read in relation to Oral Traditions. Within the chapter it talks about whether writing came into existence as an extension of speech or as an extension of drawing. Roy Harris favors the idea that writing developed as an extension of drawing, but you will have to read it for yourself if you are curious about the writing aspect because we want to talk about oral traditions. What are the pros and cons of the oral traditions vs. writing?
Roy Harris refers to Socrates in Plato's dialogue Phaedrus, specifically 
when he tells the story of the ancient Egyptian god Thoth who invented various arts, including writing, Thoth said: 'This invention, O king, will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.' The king was not impressed and replied: '....For this invention [writing] will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practise their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant...." (page 19 of The Origin of Writing).
To some extent the arguments against writing here from the king reflect the incompacity of written words alone to convey ideas. Do we get more meaning from the spoken word? How does that happen? The problem is in order to make this argument.....it has to be written down in Phaedrus to make it an argument that survives beyond the lifespan of Plato that we can talk about today.
Just a little something I read that made me think of the Oral Traditions class.
when he tells the story of the ancient Egyptian god Thoth who invented various arts, including writing, Thoth said: 'This invention, O king, will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.' The king was not impressed and replied: '....For this invention [writing] will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practise their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant...." (page 19 of The Origin of Writing).To some extent the arguments against writing here from the king reflect the incompacity of written words alone to convey ideas. Do we get more meaning from the spoken word? How does that happen? The problem is in order to make this argument.....it has to be written down in Phaedrus to make it an argument that survives beyond the lifespan of Plato that we can talk about today.
Just a little something I read that made me think of the Oral Traditions class.
No comments:
Post a Comment