8 thoughts on “Week 6 – Writing, Books, Literature (T4)”
Patricia loh hui ye
Week 5 – Manipulative Effects of Media
In Enzenberger’s influential essay on the Constituents of a Theory of The Media, talks about realizing the true potential of the media. I actually found it remarkable how a man in the early 70′s was so able to predict the future of media use so accurately. Enzenberger recognizes the potential of the media, and believes that media in the digital age would mobilize audiences, and make them active producers/transmitters of content, rather than passive users. Enzenberger’s utopian vision of the future may not have turned exactly as he predicted, but think he came very close to describe reality as it is today. Enzensberger also term the concept of “consciousness industry” and he also added that it is for the first time in the history that media is making participation possible.
Next,he also talked about manipulation as part of the cultural archaism. Here Enzensberger recognizes the fact that “manipulation” as such is political act when it comes to the media industry and as he says—“every use of media presupposes manipulation.” In which any form of media is required to be first manipulated and then produced even in the telecast of realty shows nowadays.
Dionne Cheah
In Ong’s article, he explores how writing can restructure human consciousness. This is an intriguing thought and when he explains how writing can be viewed as a technology – something that had never occurred to me before – it was then I realized how much I take writing for granted (shows how deeply interiorized it is). When something naturally comes to us, it is less likely that we tend to question it.
In a later paragraph, Ong also discusses how the permanence of the written word, then later deeply interiorized by print, allowed people to situate themselves at points in time. He elaborates that before print, most did not to bother to know what calendar year they were in – there was no concept of computed time. Today, it is difficult to imagine a world without calendars and clocks. This reminded me of what Lynn White put across: of how every technology is not necessarily unitary and that connections between different objects can be drawn. As much as we like to consider technology as dead objects, some of them have existed way beyond our years and will continue to survive. Even when one technology dies (usage is stopped), it could have easily made an impact on another before its death and can be regenerated as well. While we are critical of implications of technology, I feel we should be conscious of the endless forms it can take on and appreciative of its endurance in human life.
Tan Zhuan Liang
I find Ong’s article pretty thought intriguing as it depicts how writing restructures consciousness. For example, by linking up with the notion of ‘Aura’ coined by Benjamin, Ong brought up the relationship between the author and authority. Writing as opposed to orality lacks the ‘human’ touch. This would possibly lead to the detachment of meaning from the author as the reader may not be able to fully understand what the original intention of the author. While it may seem rather irresponsible due the inability to clarity on the spot, it does not fully reflect the situation of our contemporary society due to the intricate links in the Internet. Readers are able to seek clarification by contacting the author personally or via certain administration. Moreover the formation of online blogs and book platforms are able to provide a foundation where readers can meet to discuss their own perspective and voice with other readers. This would not only clarify certain controversy issues but it also retains a certain form of ‘human touch’ via orality in the online world.
Gareth Nah
Chartier discusses the way in which readers explore unfamiliar and different texts, just as voyagers explore faraway lands. The reader’s understanding and appreciation of a body of text is heavily influenced by aesthetic factors such as its layout and presentation. Chartier argues that while the content of the text is indeed a highly important factor influencing the reader’s enjoyment and appreciation of what he is reading, seemingly insignificant factors such as even the margin sizes at the edges of each page affect the reader, perhaps in subconscious ways. I tend to agree with Chartier on this, as I have experienced substantial frustration in trying to annotate my texts and readings. Browsing through books in bookstores, I have also promptly put away books whose fonts and layouts do not aesthetically appeal to me.
The importance of factors other than content may also be observed in the film industry. Often, in assessing the success of a Hollywood release, we do not merely consider the content, or storyline, but also make our judgments based on the quality of acting and effects employed in the film. These factors may be understood as analogous to the margin sizes in the abovementioned example of the text.
Ong delves into the realm of writing, and its social implications. Among others, he argues that artificiality does not inevitably translate to the dehumanization of people. I opine that this is a fair argument as the creation of artificiality is arguably part of the intrinsic nature of humans. Indeed, humans have a long history of innovation and creation. Compare the use of writing to the use of speech. As humans, speech is natural to us, being a part of our bodily functions. Writing however, is artificial in that it is a human creation.
James Ang
Plato had four main criticism of writing: He argues that writing is inhuman. Writing is unresponsive to humans. Writing destroys memory. Lastly, writing cannot defend itself from circumstances where it is misinterpreted or misused. I argue against his critique of writing. If writing is that destructive, how were his ideas able to reach the generations of today? If his ideas were not translated into writings, we would not have been aware of his ideas today.
This is why I appreciate Ong’s article. He recognized that writing is valuable to us in its own ways. He identifies writing as a form of technology. To him, technology enhances human life. Even though he sees writing as artificial, he praises such artificiality. He deems writing as very important and in his own words, “indeed essential for the realization of fuller, interior, human potentials.”
Hence, I agree that writing is essential to us and can overcome obstacles faced by orality.
It was quite refreshing to read Ong’s article and come away with the view that writing is in fact technology. Many of our high-tech devices of today also incorporate ‘writing’ technology. Simple tasks that we take for granted, such as coming to this blog alone requires us to click or input the URL (comprising of alphabets, symbols and numbers) into the browser software. From the video link above, old writing technology has also formed the backbone to which new technology is based on. Perhaps the way our computers manage and organize its information can be traced back to how people have come to use indexing methods and chapters in books.
Writing has also shaped the way we think. I’d like to believe that writing is like a ‘mental aid’ (vis-a-vis a hearing aid), it gives our thought processes physicality, while our brain can only process so many thoughts at one given moment. Hence, we do note-taking in our lectures and tutorials, prepare bullet-points for our presentations. Again, the recorded nature of writing has allowed us to master complex matters in our social world, such as the creation and manufacturing of high-tech devices; Bureaucratic Institutions also depend heavily on writing, receiving operating instructions from set laws and regulations, while bureaucrats write to record down events and convey new ideas within the organization.
Lee Wei Jie
Personally I find the reading by Ong really intriguing, as he showcases how the shift from orality to writing has produced social phenomena.
On my end, it caused me to think about social implications of writing. I would like to suggest that one of such implication (possibly) could be the rise of the social behaviour of acting through writing. The illusion or story comes from the ability to edit words, or to hide and mask emotions, which signifies to some extent some form of acting of the author. Whereas previously orality was relatively non-linear and random, the editability of writing has allowed for the writer to hide within the less-emotional written word, or to portray his rhetoric in a person distinct from his or her own (personification). Although it can’t be traced as of now whether acting had arisen even before writing was introduced into society, but it seems plausible that the introduction of writing may have very well proliferated acting and socializing people to act or to hold a facade of their identity.
“Yet words are alone in a text. Moreover, in composing a text, in ‘writing’ something, the one producing the written utterance is also alone.” The idea of being alone suggests not being implicated by the reactions and responses of people. The written reality or identity that the lone author portrays may be one that is reformed and shaped over and over again, until the reality that author tries to portrays is deemed fit to his or her so desires. Orality however is limited in this trait, where in fact, the audience would easily retrieve any intonation, or body language or gestures that were enacted. Once something was uttered in speech, it would have been hard to go back to edit it. Furthermore, it is harder for someone to mask a facade or a lie through oral speech. Rather, it might have been through the ability to write and read, that people learn in a greater extent how to hold different person-identities, as a form of socialising effect that was greater proliferated through society.
Lee Wei Jie
Personally I find the reading by Ong really intriguing, as he showcases how the shift from orality to writing has produced social phenomena.
On my end, it caused me to think about social implications of writing. I would like to suggest that one of such implication (possibly) could be the rise of the behaviour of acting through writing. The illusion or story comes from the ability to edit words, or to hide and mask emotions, which signifies to some extent some form of acting of the author. Whereas previously orality was relatively non-linear and random, the editability of writing has allowed for the writer to hide within the less-emotional written word, or to portray his rhetoric in a person distinct from his or her own. Although it can’t be traced as of now whether acting had arisen even before writing was introduced into society, but it seems plausible that the introduction of writing may have very well proliferated acting and socializing people to act.
“Yet words are alone in a text. Moreover, in composing a text, in ‘writing’ something, the one producing the written utterance is also alone.” The idea of being alone very well suggests not being implicated by the reactions and responses of people. The written-reality that the lone author portrays may be one that is reformed and shaped over and over again, until the reality that author so desires is deemed fit. Orality however is limited in this trait, where in fact, the audience would easily retrieve any intonation, or body language or gestures that were enacted.
Week 5 – Manipulative Effects of Media
In Enzenberger’s influential essay on the Constituents of a Theory of The Media, talks about realizing the true potential of the media. I actually found it remarkable how a man in the early 70′s was so able to predict the future of media use so accurately. Enzenberger recognizes the potential of the media, and believes that media in the digital age would mobilize audiences, and make them active producers/transmitters of content, rather than passive users. Enzenberger’s utopian vision of the future may not have turned exactly as he predicted, but think he came very close to describe reality as it is today. Enzensberger also term the concept of “consciousness industry” and he also added that it is for the first time in the history that media is making participation possible.
Next,he also talked about manipulation as part of the cultural archaism. Here Enzensberger recognizes the fact that “manipulation” as such is political act when it comes to the media industry and as he says—“every use of media presupposes manipulation.” In which any form of media is required to be first manipulated and then produced even in the telecast of realty shows nowadays.
In Ong’s article, he explores how writing can restructure human consciousness. This is an intriguing thought and when he explains how writing can be viewed as a technology – something that had never occurred to me before – it was then I realized how much I take writing for granted (shows how deeply interiorized it is). When something naturally comes to us, it is less likely that we tend to question it.
In a later paragraph, Ong also discusses how the permanence of the written word, then later deeply interiorized by print, allowed people to situate themselves at points in time. He elaborates that before print, most did not to bother to know what calendar year they were in – there was no concept of computed time. Today, it is difficult to imagine a world without calendars and clocks. This reminded me of what Lynn White put across: of how every technology is not necessarily unitary and that connections between different objects can be drawn. As much as we like to consider technology as dead objects, some of them have existed way beyond our years and will continue to survive. Even when one technology dies (usage is stopped), it could have easily made an impact on another before its death and can be regenerated as well. While we are critical of implications of technology, I feel we should be conscious of the endless forms it can take on and appreciative of its endurance in human life.
I find Ong’s article pretty thought intriguing as it depicts how writing restructures consciousness. For example, by linking up with the notion of ‘Aura’ coined by Benjamin, Ong brought up the relationship between the author and authority. Writing as opposed to orality lacks the ‘human’ touch. This would possibly lead to the detachment of meaning from the author as the reader may not be able to fully understand what the original intention of the author. While it may seem rather irresponsible due the inability to clarity on the spot, it does not fully reflect the situation of our contemporary society due to the intricate links in the Internet. Readers are able to seek clarification by contacting the author personally or via certain administration. Moreover the formation of online blogs and book platforms are able to provide a foundation where readers can meet to discuss their own perspective and voice with other readers. This would not only clarify certain controversy issues but it also retains a certain form of ‘human touch’ via orality in the online world.
Chartier discusses the way in which readers explore unfamiliar and different texts, just as voyagers explore faraway lands. The reader’s understanding and appreciation of a body of text is heavily influenced by aesthetic factors such as its layout and presentation. Chartier argues that while the content of the text is indeed a highly important factor influencing the reader’s enjoyment and appreciation of what he is reading, seemingly insignificant factors such as even the margin sizes at the edges of each page affect the reader, perhaps in subconscious ways. I tend to agree with Chartier on this, as I have experienced substantial frustration in trying to annotate my texts and readings. Browsing through books in bookstores, I have also promptly put away books whose fonts and layouts do not aesthetically appeal to me.
The importance of factors other than content may also be observed in the film industry. Often, in assessing the success of a Hollywood release, we do not merely consider the content, or storyline, but also make our judgments based on the quality of acting and effects employed in the film. These factors may be understood as analogous to the margin sizes in the abovementioned example of the text.
Ong delves into the realm of writing, and its social implications. Among others, he argues that artificiality does not inevitably translate to the dehumanization of people. I opine that this is a fair argument as the creation of artificiality is arguably part of the intrinsic nature of humans. Indeed, humans have a long history of innovation and creation. Compare the use of writing to the use of speech. As humans, speech is natural to us, being a part of our bodily functions. Writing however, is artificial in that it is a human creation.
Plato had four main criticism of writing: He argues that writing is inhuman. Writing is unresponsive to humans. Writing destroys memory. Lastly, writing cannot defend itself from circumstances where it is misinterpreted or misused. I argue against his critique of writing. If writing is that destructive, how were his ideas able to reach the generations of today? If his ideas were not translated into writings, we would not have been aware of his ideas today.
This is why I appreciate Ong’s article. He recognized that writing is valuable to us in its own ways. He identifies writing as a form of technology. To him, technology enhances human life. Even though he sees writing as artificial, he praises such artificiality. He deems writing as very important and in his own words, “indeed essential for the realization of fuller, interior, human potentials.”
Hence, I agree that writing is essential to us and can overcome obstacles faced by orality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtElbFVhHBo
It was quite refreshing to read Ong’s article and come away with the view that writing is in fact technology. Many of our high-tech devices of today also incorporate ‘writing’ technology. Simple tasks that we take for granted, such as coming to this blog alone requires us to click or input the URL (comprising of alphabets, symbols and numbers) into the browser software. From the video link above, old writing technology has also formed the backbone to which new technology is based on. Perhaps the way our computers manage and organize its information can be traced back to how people have come to use indexing methods and chapters in books.
Writing has also shaped the way we think. I’d like to believe that writing is like a ‘mental aid’ (vis-a-vis a hearing aid), it gives our thought processes physicality, while our brain can only process so many thoughts at one given moment. Hence, we do note-taking in our lectures and tutorials, prepare bullet-points for our presentations. Again, the recorded nature of writing has allowed us to master complex matters in our social world, such as the creation and manufacturing of high-tech devices; Bureaucratic Institutions also depend heavily on writing, receiving operating instructions from set laws and regulations, while bureaucrats write to record down events and convey new ideas within the organization.
Personally I find the reading by Ong really intriguing, as he showcases how the shift from orality to writing has produced social phenomena.
On my end, it caused me to think about social implications of writing. I would like to suggest that one of such implication (possibly) could be the rise of the social behaviour of acting through writing. The illusion or story comes from the ability to edit words, or to hide and mask emotions, which signifies to some extent some form of acting of the author. Whereas previously orality was relatively non-linear and random, the editability of writing has allowed for the writer to hide within the less-emotional written word, or to portray his rhetoric in a person distinct from his or her own (personification). Although it can’t be traced as of now whether acting had arisen even before writing was introduced into society, but it seems plausible that the introduction of writing may have very well proliferated acting and socializing people to act or to hold a facade of their identity.
“Yet words are alone in a text. Moreover, in composing a text, in ‘writing’ something, the one producing the written utterance is also alone.” The idea of being alone suggests not being implicated by the reactions and responses of people. The written reality or identity that the lone author portrays may be one that is reformed and shaped over and over again, until the reality that author tries to portrays is deemed fit to his or her so desires. Orality however is limited in this trait, where in fact, the audience would easily retrieve any intonation, or body language or gestures that were enacted. Once something was uttered in speech, it would have been hard to go back to edit it. Furthermore, it is harder for someone to mask a facade or a lie through oral speech. Rather, it might have been through the ability to write and read, that people learn in a greater extent how to hold different person-identities, as a form of socialising effect that was greater proliferated through society.
Personally I find the reading by Ong really intriguing, as he showcases how the shift from orality to writing has produced social phenomena.
On my end, it caused me to think about social implications of writing. I would like to suggest that one of such implication (possibly) could be the rise of the behaviour of acting through writing. The illusion or story comes from the ability to edit words, or to hide and mask emotions, which signifies to some extent some form of acting of the author. Whereas previously orality was relatively non-linear and random, the editability of writing has allowed for the writer to hide within the less-emotional written word, or to portray his rhetoric in a person distinct from his or her own. Although it can’t be traced as of now whether acting had arisen even before writing was introduced into society, but it seems plausible that the introduction of writing may have very well proliferated acting and socializing people to act.
“Yet words are alone in a text. Moreover, in composing a text, in ‘writing’ something, the one producing the written utterance is also alone.” The idea of being alone very well suggests not being implicated by the reactions and responses of people. The written-reality that the lone author portrays may be one that is reformed and shaped over and over again, until the reality that author so desires is deemed fit. Orality however is limited in this trait, where in fact, the audience would easily retrieve any intonation, or body language or gestures that were enacted.