What Makes Man Wise:
Strolling through campus one comes upon many bustling minds—each convinced that there is a sort of knowledge that makes their particular field of study the most valuable, and the closest to the truth. I start this discussion as such, for I have just put Yates’s book down, and there is a great deal of discussion to be had. I will start with a musing on the oral tradition itself; firstly: an argument against the written tradition is valid if it is accompanied by an argument against the artificial memory as well. They are one in the same in my opinion—they are both technologies, and require a refined skill to produce such. If Kane’s argument is against the writing tradition for its technological dominance—what does he suppose the oral tradition is (knowledge naturally assumed). On the contrary—he reveals it himself—that Orality is a reflection of environment, as is literacy; his version of Ludism only permits itself to strike the victim just before the fatal blow to the mind itself—which negates ludism.

So aside from these speculations, what has been on my mind primarily after putting down Yates is the question of truth, and the soul; perhaps this why I opened this blog entry up with “bustling minds”. I happen to ascribe to the school of destination—we are all headed on one—and each voyage seems to contemplate truth along the way. I do not consider myself a scholarly philosophy student—just an observer—who loves life. Any way putting aside these thoughts; I will continue upon the direction of this conversation.

Writing obviously falls into this realm of creation, for it is passed the development of artificial memory. Artificial memory as I have been reading in Yates is systematic, and has developed with a certain set of rules and methods to employ such as, “for ‘things’ virtue and vice are represented (valor and cowardice), also an art (metallurgy). They are depicted in memory with images of gods and men (Mars, Achilles, Vulcan, Epeus). In a sense, the mythic aspect of Orality is a sort of vocabulary, and a sort of grammar. The question from hence forth is: does this jade one from the truth, or does creation bring us closer to it.
Aristotle upon truth and argument for creation:

Aristotle contends in de anima that, “no one could ever learn or understand anything, if he had not the faculty of perception; even when he thinks speculatively, he must have some mental picture with which to think (32)”. This conception is therefore an argument for the legitimacy of the imitator, the artist; it is an argument for the varying forms of the arts as well, namely the poet, who achieves his art either with written skill, or the elaborate memory theater which orchestrates songs of myth. This why “For Aristotle such impressions are the basic source of all knowledge; though refined upon and abstracted by thinking intellect, there could be no thought or knowledge without them, for all knowledge depends on sense impression (36)”. Isn’t this wonderful—what we are all doing as English majors— it is not benign jargon like those damn scientist believe in the EPS building—are very souls are being discovered one book, one essay, and one literary thought at a time.

Plato and the Allegory of the cave:



There is another school of thought that is prevalent in western philosophy and philology—Plato and his teachings. I thought I would introduce this topic by first discussing the allegory of the cave, because it was mentioned in two of my classes today—redundant—I know. I am sure many of you are aware of the film “The Matrix”. At first this movie can be a turn off because of Keuna Reeves monotone dialogue, and the 90’s dot com boom references. But aside from these trivial things let’s think of the overall theme (man has a veil thrown over him, he can neither tell what is up and down, and he has an even harder time figuring out what is real and what is not). This borrowed platonic idea subsequently sets off a Hollywood action packed sci-fi thriller. What is important about mentioning this is that the concept of not knowing the truth and obscuring through art is an integral part of Plato’s philosophy regarding the creation of things. Yates in The Art Of Memory paraphrase Plato and states that, “True knowledge consists in fitting the imprints from sense impression on to the mould or imprint of the higher reality of which the things here below are reflections (36)”; if Plato is confident about this it would make sense stating that Plato neither believed in the use of artificial memory or the art of writing—these acts served no purpose in either society and especially in the domain of truth seeking. The only truth seeking that was to avail for Plato was—the recollection of knowledge when all things in the universe were a unified collective consciousness of truth.

On a lighter note for all those who do enjoy the occasional jab at literary persons here is a good Plato quote on the invention of writing, “you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise (38)”. It’s good esoteric joke in my opinion for all who claim to be English majors.

These musing do not even began to scratch the surface of anything—the art of orality thus for me seems to be similar to the art of literacy—they just employ different tools that seem to clash with one another that creates this odd thing; I might have to call, human experience. Here is to James Joyce: “A way a lone a last a loved a long the” Dr Sexson filled in the rest this morning or perhaps not—for everything intertwines like a river making its way from “swerve of shore to bend of bay” and I have a feeling it might all be truth.