The thing I keep coming back to is the fragility of it all. Surely a Library-of-Alexandria level cataclysm of short form video/content based knowledge is much easier since the required hardware and software is much more complex than written word? That's not even to mention the AI data centers possibility of power outage or destruction via war. Like anyone else I have no idea how the new literacy world will pan out but I skeptical of the premise just on its material precarity alone.
One thing which is rarely discussed w/r/t Ong but which is absolutely central to his work is the connection between writing and death. The author of a written work is dead [EDIT: in the sense that they cannot respond to questioning—we have only the text], even if the historical author is still alive; by the same token, this means that the author survives in the written work beyond the death of their body. Is a society which is incapable of reckoning with the written word, but which lacks compensatory faculties of memory, a society incapable of reckoning with the reality of death?
As *I* understand it, an oral milieu tends to be conservative and attuned to cycles. Since in a "primitive" nonliterate group the past necessarily has to adapt itself to the present—there is some unspecified but real limit on what information a group can retain without externalizing information in some form or other—the linearity of time, or of a historical process, is less apparent that it would be to a group that keeps some sort of indelible record. Reckoning with death is easier when one is confident that there will be nothing *new* to see, and can content themselves with having participated in a cycle which is essentially unchanging.
Traditionally in sub-Saharan African cultures, the end of the self-realization process is becoming an ancestor. Dying is, in a sense, the purpose of living. (That definitely isn't how they'd frame it, but the point stands.) There are differences between degrees of ancestors: the ones who have descendants who knew them in life, and the ones who belong to the general moral and spiritual ambiance in which the group lives. An oral culture reckons with death, I think, by recognizing traces of the past in the present.
I'm not certain how the schema works in a society that isn't doing much reading, but can make peoples' dead grandparents talk to them as AI chatbot trained on what the hot mics in their various devices have recorded them saying over the decades.
Along similar lines, my immediate thought after reading this is that any post-literate faculty opened up by the transition would be collective rather than individual. This seems to be in accord with observations of contemporary hyperpolitics. It's value, whether positive or negative, comes down to its contents.
I do think that it's important to keep in mind the difference between the general change we are talking about, that which is fundamental to the basic technological developments, and the particulars that we observe today. Of course being able to reliably distinguish those is likely impossible in the moment.
Do you really think that society was capable of reckoning with the reality of death, at any point in recent history? Or ever really?
You landed on the question I conscientiously avoided asking. If there's a consistent pattern or tendency in the years between the invention of the Watt steam engine and the proliferation of LLMs, is it the diminution of the individual for the sake of increasing the power of the collective?
Is there a point where the individual stops mattering to the point where the species itself becomes a matter of secondary importance compared to the propagation and maintenance of its technological integuments?
In my own reflections recently on this topic, a few come to mind to share:
- The text "In Search of the Primitive" by Stanley Diamond offers an interesting overview of social structures our hunter/gatherer ancestors had, many of which I'd say there is hunger for today (deeply meaningful existence) that, to the extent we're seeing a move away from a literate world, won't be reflected by new forms. Among other things preventing this, not having small-150 people sized small closed communities with culture that evolved naturally to handle various needs ensures re-tribalizing won't look the same as our predecessors.
- I do think the shift to a focus on "vibes" in culture may reflect a limitation in collective ability to conceptually integrate the complexities of social division, but likely also reflect a skewing away from abstract thinking practices towards feeling.
- Having been sick lately, I've been watching a lot of TV and movies, and very quickly started watching classic cinema to keep intellectually engaged (like the great 4k of The Searchers). It's reminded me that there are intelligent and unintelligent ways of engaging in any medium or communication format.
- My own impression is that our present shift isn't a death knell for literacy, but that it and "neo-orality" may learn to live side-by-side (through much effort in the education system, I bet!)
Persons and groups that speak of building "community" have my best wishes, but little hope for real success. True community is engendered by practical need. If the obligations which it imposes on the individual can be ignored, then it's merely an association. But since even *those* seem hard enough to come by lately, I'll say that every bit helps.
I take it you've read that Atlantic article "The Origin of Vibes"? I might make my students read it next semester—or, I guess, ask them to give it to ChatGPT and have them summarize it for them.
I appreciate your hesitation about the practicality of building community. I do see a lot of positive examples of local community activity, but it is often rooted in practical needs (for better and worse, I see this happening more and more). I do think at the end of the North American narrative of freedom lies the realization that much social meaning is rooted in reciprocity, but it's hard for people to square that tension between personal and communal preferences/needs today.
I haven't read that Atlanta article, but I'm curious to. This might make me take the plunge on a subscription (and not use AI for it)…
It's scary that moment when You Open an Arturo Pérez-Reverte book and midway through the page You feel that small part of your brain whispering "this is boring, why don't we Open YouTube instead?"
Shit's insidious. It really is. I'm trying to switch over to listening to the radio instead of YouTube mixes while I work, because just having the frigging homepage open costs me 15+ minutes from clicking around.
The thing I keep coming back to is the fragility of it all. Surely a Library-of-Alexandria level cataclysm of short form video/content based knowledge is much easier since the required hardware and software is much more complex than written word? That's not even to mention the AI data centers possibility of power outage or destruction via war. Like anyone else I have no idea how the new literacy world will pan out but I skeptical of the premise just on its material precarity alone.
Believe me, you're not the only one who dwells on it.
Here's a question: how many times in the lifespan of the species can literacy be lost and rediscovered?
How many times in the lifespan of the species can digital technology be lost and then rediscovered?
I wonder—if there's some kind of cataclysmic, will this be Homo sapiens' technological apex? Are we approaching or living through it now?
This was great! No need to apologize to me, I'm just happy my random comment inspired your much more detailed and interesting thoughts.
Thanks for your generosity in giving me food for thought!
One thing which is rarely discussed w/r/t Ong but which is absolutely central to his work is the connection between writing and death. The author of a written work is dead [EDIT: in the sense that they cannot respond to questioning—we have only the text], even if the historical author is still alive; by the same token, this means that the author survives in the written work beyond the death of their body. Is a society which is incapable of reckoning with the written word, but which lacks compensatory faculties of memory, a society incapable of reckoning with the reality of death?
As *I* understand it, an oral milieu tends to be conservative and attuned to cycles. Since in a "primitive" nonliterate group the past necessarily has to adapt itself to the present—there is some unspecified but real limit on what information a group can retain without externalizing information in some form or other—the linearity of time, or of a historical process, is less apparent that it would be to a group that keeps some sort of indelible record. Reckoning with death is easier when one is confident that there will be nothing *new* to see, and can content themselves with having participated in a cycle which is essentially unchanging.
Traditionally in sub-Saharan African cultures, the end of the self-realization process is becoming an ancestor. Dying is, in a sense, the purpose of living. (That definitely isn't how they'd frame it, but the point stands.) There are differences between degrees of ancestors: the ones who have descendants who knew them in life, and the ones who belong to the general moral and spiritual ambiance in which the group lives. An oral culture reckons with death, I think, by recognizing traces of the past in the present.
I'm not certain how the schema works in a society that isn't doing much reading, but can make peoples' dead grandparents talk to them as AI chatbot trained on what the hot mics in their various devices have recorded them saying over the decades.
Along similar lines, my immediate thought after reading this is that any post-literate faculty opened up by the transition would be collective rather than individual. This seems to be in accord with observations of contemporary hyperpolitics. It's value, whether positive or negative, comes down to its contents.
I do think that it's important to keep in mind the difference between the general change we are talking about, that which is fundamental to the basic technological developments, and the particulars that we observe today. Of course being able to reliably distinguish those is likely impossible in the moment.
Do you really think that society was capable of reckoning with the reality of death, at any point in recent history? Or ever really?
You landed on the question I conscientiously avoided asking. If there's a consistent pattern or tendency in the years between the invention of the Watt steam engine and the proliferation of LLMs, is it the diminution of the individual for the sake of increasing the power of the collective?
Is there a point where the individual stops mattering to the point where the species itself becomes a matter of secondary importance compared to the propagation and maintenance of its technological integuments?
In my own reflections recently on this topic, a few come to mind to share:
- The text "In Search of the Primitive" by Stanley Diamond offers an interesting overview of social structures our hunter/gatherer ancestors had, many of which I'd say there is hunger for today (deeply meaningful existence) that, to the extent we're seeing a move away from a literate world, won't be reflected by new forms. Among other things preventing this, not having small-150 people sized small closed communities with culture that evolved naturally to handle various needs ensures re-tribalizing won't look the same as our predecessors.
- I do think the shift to a focus on "vibes" in culture may reflect a limitation in collective ability to conceptually integrate the complexities of social division, but likely also reflect a skewing away from abstract thinking practices towards feeling.
- Having been sick lately, I've been watching a lot of TV and movies, and very quickly started watching classic cinema to keep intellectually engaged (like the great 4k of The Searchers). It's reminded me that there are intelligent and unintelligent ways of engaging in any medium or communication format.
- My own impression is that our present shift isn't a death knell for literacy, but that it and "neo-orality" may learn to live side-by-side (through much effort in the education system, I bet!)
Persons and groups that speak of building "community" have my best wishes, but little hope for real success. True community is engendered by practical need. If the obligations which it imposes on the individual can be ignored, then it's merely an association. But since even *those* seem hard enough to come by lately, I'll say that every bit helps.
I take it you've read that Atlantic article "The Origin of Vibes"? I might make my students read it next semester—or, I guess, ask them to give it to ChatGPT and have them summarize it for them.
I appreciate your hesitation about the practicality of building community. I do see a lot of positive examples of local community activity, but it is often rooted in practical needs (for better and worse, I see this happening more and more). I do think at the end of the North American narrative of freedom lies the realization that much social meaning is rooted in reciprocity, but it's hard for people to square that tension between personal and communal preferences/needs today.
I haven't read that Atlanta article, but I'm curious to. This might make me take the plunge on a subscription (and not use AI for it)…
It's scary that moment when You Open an Arturo Pérez-Reverte book and midway through the page You feel that small part of your brain whispering "this is boring, why don't we Open YouTube instead?"
Shit's insidious. It really is. I'm trying to switch over to listening to the radio instead of YouTube mixes while I work, because just having the frigging homepage open costs me 15+ minutes from clicking around.