Into the Postliterate

  • The rules are changing

    A coming of age and some insight into the past


    Why should you care about orality?

    This has been a tough question for me. After all, if I can’t answer this, then to put it lightly, what’s the point?

    And then, when talking it out with someone recently, I made a connection.

    Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

    It’s been a couple of weeks, and the chaos that we watched in the United States seems to be dissipating. However, there is still a vast divide that needs to be overcome.

    The rules are changing.

    I’ve brought up Ong and the Cognitive Development study – and at the root, if our oral sensibilities are increasing – the fundamentals of logic change. And if the fundamentals change, the rules of debate change.

    And if you have someone with more literate sensibilities arguing with someone with oral sensibilities? You might as well be speaking a different language. Until we learn what these real differences are, everyone will be yelling into deaf ears on either side.

    I bring up the United States because I wonder if that’s at play in some part of the conflict. Two groups with drastically different sets of rules of debate. The arguments are incomprehensible by the opposition.

    It’s a coming of age story.

    There’s this phrase that I keep hearing over and over, “Yes, but this is new!” In some sense, sure. But in a lot of senses, I don’t think so.

    What I’m wondering is, is this a coming of age story? Are the arrogant teenagers of countries simply taking a step closer to understanding our elders in terms of societies and culture? Putting on suites to go into the world’s workforce and making adult decisions with all the nuances and complexities that only an older society could comprehend.

    I feel it when I leave North America ( Canada for me ). The moment I land in Heathrow, the land, the culture, the cities feel “older” than mine. History seeps out from the walls. No matter how new-aged or foreign, there’s a sense of history for me. And maybe this history comes from these times older than I can comprehend.

    And perhaps with the age of civilization, there is more diversity in sensibilities, oral, literate, other? Or perhaps more relevant examples of when their country was oral? After all, in our “western” history, our North American “countries” have never experienced this, because after all – they didn’t exist in the post-classical ( 400-1500 BCE ) hay day that the rest of the world has.

    Yes, that was a lot of “quotations” there – mainly in recognition of the cultures that were here before all of this – and those cultures struggling today, I feel have a better sense of what’s going on. Maybe one day we’ll learn to be quiet and listen to them.

    My point is, just like teenagers and adults do – we fight over the plight of something new and something old. Throw away what our elders know to only come around in the end and realize both are right.

    Classic rules?

    So if all of this battle is a coming of age, then there are rules to how. And in understanding oral cultures before we will take that step to a solution. I suggest that we all brush off our communication skills in “rhetoric” – you do have those, right? 😬

    You may have noticed that I posed the subtitle as a question – not a statement. It wasn’t a typo.

    While I feel we should brush up and learn more pre-medieval rhetoric – there is also what I think maybe a gap in history, and I’m starting to look to learn more about it—that of the commoner.

    The printing press lowered the barrier of entry into literacy and the written word. Before then, however, it was incredibly high. So high that only a percentage of a percent had access or the wherewithal to be trained or hire trained people. And so what we really know might be skewed to the elite. We have movies about Royalty and knights, about emperors or “previous” lords cast into slavery – but what do we really know about the common man, woman, or child? What persuaded the peasants, serfs, or the freemen in medieval times? What do we know about their sense of debate and logic? How did they debate and come to a common-sense amongst themselves?

    I remembered once being told that while we can make many assumptions and inferences from Shakespearan times, like what the common population was interested in being entertained by, we actually know very little. It wasn’t a real representation of the masses. In sad honesty, it didn’t matter: fear, torment and survival were.

    I hope that’s not where we go again. I hope we get through this postliterate hiccup all intact. If I have a nugget of a provable theory here, there’s some bit of insight into this literacy/orality division that once was.


    Originally posted on Substack

  • Non binary

    Non binary

    Orality is fluid; so are we.

    Last week I introduced Walter J. Ong and my first comparison with his characteristics of oral cultures. The power in the choice of a pronoun.

    And this leads me to a perception of what could be a characteristic of a literate culture

    Binary thought

    McLuhan, Postman, Ong, and I’m sure others, have looked at the ecology of the written word and quickly seen its influence on our logical nature. It’s not a far leap to see how literacy and math, science, law progressed together.

    Yet in this ability, is a simple mental foundation. Until recently our technological mountain has been composed of this smallest foundation. True (1) and false (0). On (1) and off(0). Is (1) and isn’t (0).

    After all – a word is or isn’t printed on a page. It is or isn’t in paragraph 3 subsection 4. It was or was not successfully reproduced. 1+1 is or is not 2.

    We tend to think lately that our capacity and attention has whittled down to almost nothing. It might be true. Postman, in Amusing Ourselves to Death shows us the legal & political celebrity & prowess in the early days of the United States; their once staggering high literacy rates combined with the public’s ability to keep up with and even enjoy hours of complex debate & deliberation.

    On the flip side of literacy, I recently read Cultural Development: It’s Cultural and Social Foundations by A.R. Luria, a fascinating opportunity to collect insight into a changing subculture as it transitions into literacy. And it shows cracks in human thought, that with Oral cultures, the fundamentals of logic changes. It’s not that there isn’t any, it’s just not the same.

    Inference goes out the door.
    Reasoning becomes cluttered with complexity.
    Perception itself becomes void of classification.

    Perhaps it’s not so Binary. Perhaps how we categorize, or logically organize our world is up for review.

    And how interesting that now, as we delve into quantum computing we are opening our thoughts to “maybe”, “maybe not” and “maybe both.”

    The diversity of a Roman

    I think this picture is amazing. Look at it with me. A designer used AI and photoshop to give details back to the busts of Roman emperors

    What I think is relevant to binary thought – are any preconceived notions of a Roman.

    If our category, inference, definition, and judgment are based on a literate characteristic of binary thought, how we are trying to define life or imagine history might be as well.


    Photo credit: Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

    Originally posted on Substack

  • Who’s Ong?

    Walter J. Ong: Orality and Literacy

    I’ve already introduced you to McLuhan. Now, let’s introduce you to another figure that’s currently shaping my perspectives. Walter J. Ong.

    How he influence the conversation of “Orality”? His work is foundational. While I still have to get into his more history-based works, his main focus was in a small pocket of time in human history, the transition from Orality into Literacy. Hence one of his seminal works Orality and Literacy.

    But, Nick, is this a religious thing?

    Ah, you noticed what he was wearing in the picture did you? I did say that, didn’t I? While he may be an American Jesuit priest, at no time while reading Orality & Literacy did I ever get the sense of religion.

    So sure, his specific curiosity may have been triggered by religion. I can only speculate it’s not a large hop skip and a jump to wonder if it was sparked around the effect missionary work had on an oral society. How at the heart of his religion was, in a sense, literacy. But that’s where we mostly stop.

    Compassion of orality

    I say mostly because with Ong, perhaps his religion helped, but nowhere yet in my readings, have I felt any portrait of superiority between literacy and orality.

    Which seems against what I’ve found from my informal conversations. From my discussions, so far, when I even suggest a post-literate oral culture is emerging, I seem to hit this wall. “Well, I know how to read!”

    Maybe?

    Where I’m going is, that as we go on this ride, I do not want to suggest any sort of inferiority or superiority between literate and oral. They are merely different. And that difference changes our minds which in turn changes our perceptions of each other and the world we live in.

    I realize now, my first post, may have been suggestive of this backslide, talking of tribal darkness. I think I might have to rectify that in future posts.

    Back to it

    Where were we… oh yes, what does Ong have to do with Orality… everything.

    He coined the term “Secondary Orality” mainly orality steeped in literacy. TV & Movies start with a script. But somewhere it gets a little twisted and muddled when written feels spoken. It’s a fancy term you can use at a cocktail party when discussing slang, emojis, tweets ( micro-blogging ), memes, and other oral-like text.

    But the main pièce de résistance is his characteristics ( psychodynamics ) of an oral culture. It’s a pillar in everything. While there is debate, he devised a series of traits in oral cultures. I’m not going to list all of them all right now because well… spoilers, however, if you really want, Wikipedia has a decent list.

    What I will do, is leave you with a teaser of what I want to do throughout this project. What if we re-examine society today against the characteristics of an oral culture? What do you think we would find?

    Here’s the first of many:

    Sounded Word As Power and Action

    The very first is a topic Ong tackles is an oral cultures association of words and power. Every Tolkien-like fantasy story has an elemental knowledge of this. Know someone’s “true” name, and have power over them. Or better yet, read The Name of the Wind, a good fantasy book if I do say so myself.

    In the non-fictional world, for some traditions & cultures, it’s a source of deep connection. Used sparingly. A way to declare family, special relationships, or sacred moments.

    Outside of these oral traditions, there has been a resurgence of re-appropriating words. Derogatory slang is taken back as empowerment.

    Currently, one of the most powerful examples of a cultural rekindling that sounded word has power, and one I believe we’re “feeling” is a re-appropriation and a declaration, that of the pronoun.

    Imagine the neuropathways in the human mind learning and changing.

    How amazingly beautiful!


    Originally posted on Substack

  • What is Orality?

    Good question

    Since I’m going to say the word a lot, we might as well set the ground rules around it, eh? ( yes, I’m Canadian )


    “the quality of being oral or orally communicated”

    – the dictionary

    That’s it.

    Think of it as the verbal version of literate. I tried to play with language around all of this, and as you can see, it doesn’t seem to always pan out…

    Literal : Oral
Literary : Oratory
Literacy : Orality
Literate : ???

What is the oral equivalent of literate?

[ Given, I think verbal is the comprehension of words both oral and literal. That "said", it seems to be muddled a bit ]
    Literate : Oralite???

Let's try it in a sentence: "Literates and oralites have fundamental differences in what is considered 'logic'"

Meh…

    but you get the gist, right?

    So what’s the big deal?

    The deal is when you see how the word is being used. It seems to have a good amount of baggage. Baggage that I’m going to ask you to throw away.

    Like religious baggage. Looking over Twitter’s #Orality,  from what I can tell, some use it when referring to the art form of a sermon and preaching, and some use it when discussing bringing the bible to the illiterate.  While there could be overlap with religion – I will not mean anything religious when I use the word.

    Then the academic baggage. A few of the “big wigs” (Harold Innis, Eric Havelock, Marshall McLuhan, and Walter J. Ong) have determined Orality and Literacy are in total opposition. These worlds were exclusive. Ong added some nuance defining terms like “oral residue” (yuck) or primal morality. He tried to give some complexity, but in the end, they felt you lost your orality the moment you became literate. All said and done, this also, is not what I mean.

    I believe it’s not as cut and dry. Like introverts and extroverts, it’s more fluid. Non-binary ( ooo I’ve got a thought around that too ).

    Fortunately, in later years there have been more arguments supporting my current use and belief of Orality.

    “orality is not what is spoken, but what allows one to speak.”

    Donald Wesling and Tadeusz Slawek, Literary Voice: The Calling of Jonah, 159

    The same could be said that literacy is not what is written, but what allows one to read.

    It’s a skill. Perhaps, once learned, becomes more…

    Right, and…

    So where I’m going to be going? Orality and an oral mind make a big difference in our world in ways I’m not sure we fully understand.


    Originally posted on Substack

  • Breaking Books

    Breaking Books

    The following, I think, is a plausible story around the invention of the printing press. Media has a darker business side. Perhaps it always has and always will.

    The Gutenberg printing press was made to sell bible knock-offs. It was the ultimate as seen on TV product.

    The year was roughly 1450 and Gutenberg had a brilliant idea.

    Why have monks pray in silence hand copying a book that could take months, when this “device” could knock out hundreds in the same time and sell ’em for cheaper.

    Most of the schmucks buying these things can’t even read ’em. It’s latin! And those who can, are rich folks who want to keep their money. Who cares if the thing doesn’t have gold flaked pictures.

    It’s the deal of the century.

    But how will he pay? Easy. Borrow it.

    If Gutenberg had the gift of the gab to convince someone to pay him to learn how to polish gems, he can surely convince someone to give him money for this.

    After all, it’s like printing money!

    He found a nice shylock, sorry, “rich financier”, Johann Fust, who was kind enough to lend him 800 guilders.

    Although he had most of the machine figured out the additional equipment and tools where a bit harder to get right. By roughly 1452, he had run the clock out and it was time to pay his debts.

    Now, Gutenberg was probably crapping his pants a bit by now. You don’t owe money. You know that Shakespeare’s “pound of flesh” thing? That was a real thing!

    It was a real shame, because he had figured out the kinks, but hadn’t printed any books yet to sell.

    He shows the potential results to his financier praying not to be skinned and thrown into Debtors’ prison. Fust, decides not to break anything, gives Gutenberg a few extra guilders, and oh, one more thing, takes a cut of the score.

    In the end it works. Making the bibles is going great, but this is where the Breaking Bad like story really starts.

    Gutenberg brings in an apprentice to learn how to “cook” the books, a guy named Peter Schoeffer.

    A few years later, roughly 1455, Fust, finally makes his play. Schoeffer wasn’t as talented, but who cares. It’s letters on a page what does quality matter.

    Fust probably offers Schoeffer a whack less. But by now Gutenberg thinks he’s the Walter White of making books.

    Rather than just whacking him — he takes everything from him, legally. Partners with Schoeffer and the press keeps printing.

    It took 10 years for Gutenberg to be recognized as the inventor. He was 67. Died at 70.

    References:

    1. Johann Gutenberg — Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2004 The Gale Group Inc.
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg_Bible

    Photo by Kyle Cleveland on Unsplash

    Originally published on a now defunct blog
    then again on Medium and Substack