On page 93 Ong says that shortly after the introduction of writing a ‘craft literacy’ developed, where a craftsman was hired to write something (much like a builder is hired to build). This ‘craft literacy’ ended in Greece when writing was “defused throughout the population and internalized enough to effect thought processes”. The internet has done to publishing what the Greek alphabet did to writing. It is no longer a craft that belongs to a special few.

The internet has also made us move away from a list-based ethos. On page 99 Ong says the horizontal/verticle-line came about in contrast to the way oral sensibilities where structured. Oral discourse had no way of operating with reference to a space so sound could not be reduced to space. The interent is moving us towards a more ‘real’ or ‘natural’ way of organizing knowledge, moving us away from an artificial structure based on physical location. Knowledge can be displayed in a web-like manor, subjects related to one another based on the weight of meta-data attached to them, not based on (sort of) arbitrary positioning. Although still based on a displayable location the location is more contextual than arbitraty, existing in a middle ground between literary and oral societies.

There are also a lot of small things creaping back into our way of thought due to the internet. Ong mentions on 97 the weight of symbols in pre-literate societys. Icons (the lesser-cousin of the symbol) can be seen on many websites, although usually a icon-text hybrid (on fark.com for example the symbol for florida replaced the ‘o’ with an orange). Slashdot has symbols that do not acompany text, and attempt to be intuitive (a image of a joystick for ‘games’ section, for example). Computers themselves are also symbol heavy, and on macs you dont have the text under the icon. This isnt due strictly to the internet as such, but due to the fast-paced society in which we currently live. We have all sorts of symbols on road signs which we pass by at high speeds.

Ong, in “Orality and Literacy,” claims that with any new technology comes in major cultural and social changes (e.g. women entering the academia as the writing culture evolves). He then talks about the revolutionary cultural transition to “secondary orality” when the new communication technologies convert the society from the solipsistic nature to a cohesive tribal one. Marshal McLuhan who seems to be many years ahead of his time refers to this “secondary orality” culture as “global village” where participation replaces linear communication of mechanical culture. Our digital culture seems to be very close to McLuhan’s retribalisation vision although I wonder when/how we might enter “acoustic space” as our society is still fragmented, individualistic and logical.

McLuhan, in “The Medium is the Message,” further argues that what is important is not the effects of the content of the media but the effect of the media itself. So based on his arguments what we see on television or Internet are of little or no value compared to the ways those media are changing our lives. I strongly disagree with this view. The content of the media is as important in shaping a society as the media itself. Media portrayal of violence, cultural or racial stereotyping, or pornography affect the society as vigorously as the media itself. Wikis, blogs, or microblogs are as valuable as the quality of their contents, no matter how revolutionary their technologies are. I also disagree with McLuhan in regards to television itself. In his Playboy interview, he states that television “necessitates great personal involvement and participation,“ and that watching TV “involves the active participation of the viewer.” I am actually quite surprised by his remarks. Applying his own terminology of hot and cold media, I believe television belongs to the hot category that excludes the audience participation and involves passive constituent of the viewing or listening experience. Nevertheless, I agree with McLuhan that electronic (digital) media including television have an incredible ability to retribalize and recreate sensory unification similar to tribal societies.

In fact that this content at all is crucial is largely abandoned as a possibility by McLuhan: “Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot” (114). He even compares content to a “juicy piece of meat” used to “distract the watchdog of the mind” (114). Certainly this is true in some ways. As stated above, the overall effect that a medium can have on a culture is astounding if it is far-reaching enough. It is these effects that, because of their very nature–-as what I’ll call “meta-effects”–-are hard to discern. Only one that looks at the broad course of history may glimpse at a meta-effect, such as the individualism mentioned earlier.

But surely it does not end there. There are other, more immediate, effects in any medium. By contrast, I might refer to them as “micro-effects.” Why should these be mutually exclusive to the other, meta-effects? A micro effect may be such a small thing as an emotional reaction to something seen on a television screen. The medium is not questioned here, even though it is slowly having an effect on both the person and the culture. But the emotional response, in the moment, is not something to be discarded altogether as unimportant or nonexistent.

In Writing Restructuring Consciousness, Ong makes a point that Plato’s view against the written language, as passive, out of it, in an unreal unnatural world. He makes the same relationship to the computer. But, Ong makes a reference to the paradox of technology where he talks about how technology enhances what is poignantly human. Ong explains the writing as an internal and fictional process. He seems to extend Plato’s arguments about technology and praises the benefits of technology in one chapter? I am not sure if he is for or against technology?

Conversely, Mcluhan presents a more pro technology view during his Playboy interview with Eric Norden. He makes a point that technology is an agent of social and cultural change. At the end of the interview, Mcluhan asserts that he is not a fan of technology. Is he under the influence of the narcissus narcosis he mentions in the interview? He seems to avoid authorship of his statements? Norden interviewed Mcluhan in 1994, during the early stages of internet. Recently, authorship became an issue for users of web based content. How would Mcluhan respond to the issue of authorship of web based content?

I am reluctant to accept McLuhan’s arguments about the affects of phonetic literacy. McLuhan places an excessive amount of responsibility on literature in fragmenting and ultimately corrupting man. While I understand that the introduction of phonetic literature enabled man to be more individualistic and detached, it is caustic to claim that phonetic literacy alone was responsible for the “shift of values from tribal involvement to ‘civilized detachment’” (as McLuhan states in the Playboy interview). McLuhan states that man does not begin categorizing and classifying data until the advent of phonetic literacy, but ancient man had developed the concept of categorization far prior to phonetic literacy. Take division of labor in hunter/gatherer societies for example, which date back to more than two million years ago. Tribe members categorized members as male or female and assigned duties such as hunting or staying to tend the camp.

I did have a bit of trouble, however, with this phrase: “Writing, commitment of the word to space…” (7). His complete thought makes sense (that writing extends the potential of language exponentially, restructures thought, and in turn creates the possibility of “grapholects”), but I have always considered the spoken word to also be committed to space. Not that either is wrong, but I believe both should be considered in our current climate of rapid change in communication technologies.

I am also unclear on the concept of “grapholects” (borrowed from Haugen, 8). Ong is very clear that he considers writing to be “residue” (11), and that orality is primary and permanent in all human languages. Writing, he asserts, converts some dialects into “grapholects” (like the English language) which have an extensive word bank and rely heavily on the written word. This allows recorded history of the use/meaning of that language over time, which is difficult in simply oral dialects; this is very important in America and other technologically developed English-speaking nations because it allows for our popular culture to reference other decades or centuries (which interestingly is a statement for Saussure’s theories that we define ideas not by what they are, but by what they are not – this is how we tend to define our current pop culture phase – but this is an argument for elsewhere). I am unclear on how this concept fits into his model of primary orality and secondary literacy. Does written language convert to “grapholect” or is it modified by it? Is it still positively secondary to orality since “writing takes possession of the psyche” (14)?

His comments/explanation of rhetoric puts the discussion in “Phaedrus” into context a bit more. He also makes an interesting argument that trying to describe a horse as an automobile without wheels will end in an inadequate transfer of ideas. This seems to reference Saussures ideas discussed in “Course on General Linguistics”, but here, Ong is referring to a situation where idea A (an automobile) is used to describe idea B (a horse), but where A is a technological derivative of B. I would like to further discuss the relation of the two ideas to more thoroughly understand his intent. Does he agree or disagree with Saussure?

New technologies will always provide an opportunity to present information in a way that is negative or positive, but this should never prevent the creation of new technology. McLuhan questions the effects of technology on our minds and environment. Technology is powerful and the content of different mediums has the power to shape young minds. The current generation of children is being immersed in technology, which is changing how we think about teaching. How do we now approach teaching children in the information age?

People have been affected by new technologies for thousands of years but people in different cultures assimilate new technologies at different rates. Walter Ong discusses how people during medieval times did not even know what year they were born in. Is this because some cultures were unaware of the calendar or they simply lacked the technology to keep up with the current day, month and year? In modern times, technologies such as newspapers, computers and watches help people keep track of time, which is now essential to daily living.

McLuhan opposes Ong’s statement that the phonetic alphabet is a democratizing force by stating in his interview with Play Boy that the phonetic alphabet is what causes the separation from what McLuhan terms the “tribal web”. McLuhan’s evidence of this are the other societies that use hieroglyphic or ideogrammic writing systems. The induction of a phonetic alphabet causes “knowledge to be extended in alphabetic form,…creating divisions of function, of social classes, of nations and of knowledge.” While this is true this division or fragmentation is not unique to societies who do not posses phonetic alphabets. As Ong points out “Chinese character writing, like many other writing systems, is intrinsically elitist” (92). If a writing system is difficult to master the writing system itself will create a barrier between those who can write and those who cannot. This barrier causes separation and fragmentation just like McLuhan describes happens with a phonetic language.

Perhaps I missed McLuhan’s point, but he seems to have a very shamanistic view of the world which seems a bit off for the subjects he tends to talk about. His phrase “the media is the message” has some interesting truth behind it, but I relate to Ong’s view of writing as a positive technology over McLuhan’s writing-dystopia.

Also, in the Playboy interview, he speaks of the dissolution of tribal culture and the rise of nationalism. Nationalism is only possible after the invention of the printing press and by increasing the speed of information, however, couldn’t an argument be made that Nationalism is essentially tribalism on a large basis?

He goes on to speak of Shakespeare and begins by quoting Romeo and Juliet. Maybe it’s because I’m a theatre guy, but I took an extreme offense and adamantly object to his usage of Shakespeare. First of all, the Romeo and Juliet quote is haphazardly ripped out of a beautiful passage, falsely presented as a whole quotation, and blatantly misused. McLuhan’s lead into his misquoting is “some might quibble about whether or not he was referring to TV in these familiar lines from Romeo and Juliet.” With all due respect, you’ve got to be kidding me. Shakespeare was referring to television? Really?

This may seem a bit trite, but in the Playboy interview, McLuhan states “ …inherent in the artist’s creative inspiration is the process of subliminally sniffing out environmental change. It’s always been the artist who perceives the alterations in man caused by a new medium…” So, with this being said, McLuhan believes that it is the artist who will understand the effects of the new medium. That seems to make sense. However, since he is of the belief that the medium is the message, he’s also of the belief that artists’ messages are confined to the specific medium they are working in. He believes that even though Shakespeare wrote 16 comedies that were presented on stage as a play (the medium) that none of them delivered any message other than “Comedy.” Even though Shakespeare wrote 12 tragedies, the message was no more than “Tragedy.”

McLuhan ultimately does say that content plays a role, but he feels it is a subordinate one. Maybe I’m way off base, but I don’t see how content cannot be the message. McLuhan thinks that while Shakespeare and other artists are incapable of conveying a message more than “oil on canvas” or “pantomime” or “sonnet,” but they are able to foresee the effects and creation of television four centuries it’s prior? If an artist is forward thinking enough to foresee the future, why have they generally limited the mediums they utilize? I can see the argument that with the speed in which technology is progressing more than ever is the medium is becoming as important as the message. It is important to remember that the message is the true purpose of communication. Otherwise, would mediums even exist?