Reflective Essay 3

What lessons have I learned over the past two weeks? Well for one thing, Ong and Plato seem to be both on the same page, and yet not. I agree with Ong that writing does alter the consciousness. I experience that myself when posting or writing reflective essays. Plato argues that writing destroys memory, and that writing “pretends to establish outside the mind what can be only in the mind”. But isn’t what is in your mind, why you write? In this exact moment of me typing this reflective essay, I am putting my thoughts down in ink. It may not be writing per se’, but it is aligned with transferring information from thought to a medium which can capture these thoughts, and allow others to read them without my being present.

Squarciafico insisted that “the abundance of books makes men less studious,” because books are but brief accounts of a particular subject matter. This would mean that man has a brain that is more comprehensive, and not capable of forgetting. I would differentiate the book from memory in that once a book is written, truthful or not, it can be recited word for word in the time it takes to read the book. Memory is not as keen in this respect.

Another dynamic of “textuality” is that “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.” Why would this be any different than remembering? I think that anybody who does not know, or only knows a little about a subject, is capable of even more introspectivity through animated verbalization than writing it down. The mere fact that we can articulate our thought is reason enough for me to agree that there is no compounding difference between writing and orality.

Clearly, in order to write in a way that expresses, it takes a more conscious effort in thought and imagination, probably more-so than when just speaking. Speaking (orality) has a more fluent dynamic than writing. With the proper use of words and with the proper use of punctuations though, one could almost create the same speech on paper. A great example of this is Martin Luther Kings “Freedom Speech”. Although I had heard the speech many times, when I read it over and over, it takes on a new meaning, is more emphatic, and is better understood.

On technology, I understand Thamus’ argument that how it is used is not what makes technology good or bad, but the system that technology creates. In relating this to orality and writing, Thamus is concerned that writing might overcome orality. In respect to communication, you can define “system” as a set of principles in which we communicate. Thamus views orality as the basic way of communicating. He is worried that writing will take the place of oral cultures, thus possibly eradicating natural sound and thought. Thamus sees this as possibly being immoral, a nemesis to oral cultures.

Postman agrees that some cultures see technology as being a good thing benefiting everyone, naïve to the fact that certain technology is only affordable by a few of these cultures. Postman also sees that not all cultures will be receptive to technology due to ethical reasons. His biggest argument is how writing and computers will affect learning and social responsibility. His belief is that computers will isolate individuals from others because it is a tool of self proclaimed prodigy. Why communicate with others when you have all the information you want at your fingertips? Computers according to Postman, promote egocentrism, competition, and personal autonomy. It will release individuals of social responsibility.

Bacon was quoted as saying “The goal of science is the “endowment of human life with new inventions and riches”. I believe this to be partially true. Working in the aerospace industry and more importantly the Space Shuttle Program, I can say for a fact that one of the main purposes for the International Space Station is Life Science projects. These projects are focused entirely on the advantages of science in space for the humanity. So I agree with Bacon to some extent. It would make more sense if Bacon were to reword this phrase by saying “technology is geared toward new inventions for the purpose of riches and the endowment of human life”. Technology fits his thinking rather than science.

On Gitlin: One thing that resonates with me is his idea on nomadicity. Technology has become so advanced that while Postman believes that it will raise egocentrism, he neglects the thought that the “cost of always being connected” leads to Gitlins paradox on technonomadicity, that while we have the freedom of access at will, this freedom becomes freely accessible to other people as well. So while Postman might think that computers lead to private learning and individual problem-solving, he needs to know that everybody who is connected has the same capability. So is it really private learning and individual problem-solving, or a virtual open classroom that gives the freedom to learn what you want to learn?

And one last thought. As far as Frederick Taylor and technopoly is concerned. Postman cites Taylor as being the first to view technopoly in the form of “society is best served when human beings are placed at the disposal of their techniques and technology that human beings are, in a sense, worth less than their machinery.” My argument on this is that humans developed machines to replace the human effort involved in work (output). Now, it may be that some believe that machines are to replace human beings all together. But I would put the value of humans before machines because it was humans that developed machines to begin with. So I would rephrase this to say that “society is best served when techniques and technology are placed at the disposal of human beings.”