Trustworthy Messaging

By: Jonathan Seidel

Between the oral and aural: immediacy and hearsay (Postman, 33)

Orality has made a comeback but quite uniquely than its ancient style. Orality is not a certain person but a certain message. Not close relatives but foreign populists. 

Orality was the way of old. The entire society was commenced by the oral order. A model bequeathed by word of mouth rather than documentation. Law was orally understood by the community. It was a shared comprehension of the interconnected society. Yet as a societies grew more complex and non-communal members joined the system, documentation was ordained to assist in facilitating this shift. To compensate those not privy to the internal chasm. Yet this was more so internationally rather than nationally. On the tribal level the oral was the epitome of expression. Orality demonstrated a deeper link and devoted knowledge to the community, to one’s identity. Orality bound the people under the knowledgeable lens. People by virtue of their tribal counsel rather than tribal council would know how to act. 

Orality offered a cohesive model. Literacy embedded norms in documentation. Eternalising the truth in encoded form. Despite literacy’s use for religiosity and legality, it didn’t impact the common man to the same degree. It was seen as an esteem model of knowledge. A method for the elite to inscribe and transcribe their will. A way of genuine foresight and utility. The common man did not have this opportunity. He was poor and illiterate. He spent most of his time in the oral world. The text world was an aspiration, a holy sphere above the conversational spectacle. Mostly they were taught to read religious works. They were taught to read at times in a language they didn’t understand nor would it translate to their own language. This was the argument against the Danes. Learn to read and write but this was of a specific style. To read latin rather than danish or middle English. Latin happened to be a purposeful medium but most importantly a religious understanding.

The Renaissance brought back the books of old. The publications and translations offered the Italians to indulge as their islamic counterparts had done so half a millennia earlier. For the most part it didn’t reach the masses until the birth of democracy. The reformation inspired more personal engagement with texts. As more commoners began to read, more began to write. With writing hitting an all time high in the nineteenth century. Authors not actors were celebrities. What they wrote was the truth and was scared. The word of the text transitioned from world of mouth to the text. From religious texts to novella to newspapers. The text was the word. Just as it had with the religious community it had with the political community. Writing as a way of conveying truth. Instead of saying it, writing empowered the self to revel in the words. The word is definite and eternal. The word is unmistakably a seal of approval. Imploring the truth with words. It doesn’t need a preacher but a journalist. A scribe drew treaties now a writer conveys events. The status of writing was in high esteem. The textual overpowered the sages of old. Their world was irrelevant to the zeal of daily national coverage.

Who needs biblical stories when you have a whole slew of genre. The realm of fiction and fantasy, thrillers and humour. Books for all ages, written for men and women. Catering to each. Instead of an ancient text these were promoted by the newspapers. They would feature in a column bimonthly. Encouraging the readership, encouraging the entertainment. It was contemporary stories. A way forward from the ancient cultivations. These were at times more realistic and pressed on the struggles of the time. Narrating the issues through fictional creations rather than preaching from a pulpit. The reader was amazed and engulfed in the experience. It was sheer reflection. It wasn’t mere words but an experience. Not imposed by the sayer but internalised by the reader. The reader never met the author but words cut deep. The reader reads them as if they are a reflection of the true reality. They are embedded in the times. They are an illustration that follows a more realistic person rather than the supernal epics of yore. Even if the modern age turned away from religion they didn’t from texts. Texts were the replacement from the archaic old. The text was the holy aspiration but now it was in their hands. They had conquered it and they would enjoy it. Recognising its prowess.

The textual stint was short. Advanced technology began importing inventions. The radio became an alternative to the newspaper. While the latter has remained in business, they slowly died out. The only reason they are still around today is due to rituals, advertising and preference. There is something to be said about reading a newspaper like reading a book. There are e-books but they are not the same as the physical text. The smell and composition are original. Watch a video on Kant or read Kant. Reading is a personal endeavour. Textuality has lost its edge but it is still powerful. That being said television has become increasingly popular. This does not deride newspapers. Only that television more than radio gives a face to the voice. Radio revived the oral preaching but there is a difference with television. There is an extra layer to the oral. It is not just a voice but a visual. It is not just a story but current events. The newspaper is written but the television is verbal. It is more trustworthy because it is straight from the mouth. It is on display live. It is hyperreal. 

The text while covering events fails to fully imbue the emotion and emphasis. It is lacking in its connective aspect. News networks fill in this gap. The preacher is back at the pulpit. He is relaying information rather than instructing but it is a model of Sage related ideals. The newspaper is the text that speaks truth without divulging a face. It is a text that determines one’s opinion. The author is irrelevant. The author is but second rate to the writing. While it does matter since the author may be inconsistent, the writing is challenged not necessarily the person themselves. Alternatively, for the news network the person themselves is challenged. Their words are held against them since they said them live on air. They are beholden to their preaching type style. The newspaper is a medium of information while the network is confrontational and direct. The preacher has been re-ordained as a news anchor. Just as the religious trust their priest so too the viewer trusts their anchor. The Sage reappears in the oral sense. Blindly followed for his information. He provides values that are readily accepted by the viewer. The voice is calm and clear. Happy and wilfully accept. 

It is easier to critique a book than a person. The book has no feelings and nor respect. It does not reciprocate nor sulk. The reader dislikes what he reads and writes a review about his distaste. It is the terminological play that is disorienting and vague. There is little emotion and little influence. The film may be disliked and scorned but the pieces of visual art impact the viewer. The message of the film resonates more whether in rejection or in acceptance. A book is an active experience but is an imagined construction where the plot and its consistency are deliberated rather than the content and personification. The film projects its ideology on the viewer compelling them to soak up the ideals. The fervent rejection or acceptance is based on the film's coercion. The film like the news outlet asserts their visual competence. Their words are gospel. They are lecturing the reality of things whether fictionally or realistically. The presentation of humanity reflects the normative behaviour of people despite its falsehood. The visual is stimulating while the book is dull. The book is a private endeavour while the visual is a fluid internalisation. 

In the same way, television programs have a stronger pull than their book counterparts. The visual puts the entire frame into perspective. The trust of the oral is mixed with the visual. The oral lectern is invisible. The book is but a product of imagination while the program is a product of visualisation. A projected assault of truth. This is no pastime but the present moment. Documentaries do this also as they relay the picture with verbal undertones. The oral is more profound with visualisation. It is only further elevated. Dickens and others did place images in their works but was quickly recanted later on. Nonetheless, the interest, the reliance on the visual is mixed with verbal altercation. The oral is the knowledge internalised mainly by seeing it. Projected to the self. Lessons are taught on television. Just as books these are on full display. The viewer can dissect the oral transparency clearly. It is not imagining the dialogue but watching it in real time. This is how life works. The director like the actor has taught a lesson. Yet unlike the novel, the visual distances the director. Who cares, what matters is the actors. The characters and their expression. The visual is the truth. The characters are imbued with life force and dangle the novelty.  

How much more for networks to pass on their message. Even with networks losing their touch and many upset, podcasts have taken their place. Oral messaging from elsewhere. Newspapers haven’t regained popularity but new oral agents have. From mainstream gurus to podcast gurus. Influencers selling their workouts to follow. Digitised formats to watch and repeat. Listening to their every word and then buying their merchandise. The Sage is some guy on television. Some successful individual parading his knowledge whether he has a big house or big biceps. The visual authenticates their prestige and the message is fluidly accepted. Unlike networks that work on the viewership trust, this works on viewership seduction. Viewership aspiration and viewership desire. It is not sitting in for current events but for sage advice. While television sales have decayed, influencers have risen. The modern Sage is a jacked guy in the gym teaching his technique. Requiring more payment for more advice. A facade eating at the gullible. He is speaking to me. His video is legitimate and his words prophetic. Such insolence and ignorance. Yet it is the model of trust to those who can be seen and provide. 

The new oral has overtaken much of the literary world. New sages are received and aspired to. Yet maybe the oral needs a reevaluation. Maybe more books need to be read. Maybe the textual needs a revival. More engrossment in literature for more knowledge. Using the text to decipher patterns and decide for oneself. The text acts as an aspirational piece but also enables the self to decide for themselves. The old prophetic-priestly era was imposed by the Sage. The Sage and the contemporary influencer presuppose knowledge on others. The textual enabled the brilliant and the passionate to delve into the texts and add their nuance and their perspective. In a world of literacy and opportunity such a return to the text can elevate critical thinking. A person is taken at their word but not a text. Oral is necessary in a trustworthy community but that is not the case. The virtual-oral is a facade of hope and dreams. Promises by new sages that hold different values and seek to impose their values. This is not the world of the ancient oral. The ancient oral was communally tied. Today orality is used to attack one another. This word beats on that world. At the same time, no one is trustworthy and testimony is misconstrued for personal privilege. 

Perjury is another day at the office. One’s word means almost nothing. Eyewitness testimony is an inaccurate as well as agenda driven assault. Today it can even be modified. The post-truth world is a matter of choosing the value. Yet that value is in arbitrary means that seem to be the sole way of enjoyment. People spend so much time looking for random others for advice. What about one’s parents or friends? They are smarter than you think. What about a community scholar? Someone in the neighbourhood that can be easily talked to? So often the easier solution is the better one. What does the old geezer know. This guy is rich or this actor said that. The values are projected by the visual to then be receptive aurally. The digital needs to be regressed just a little or internalised as junk. A time of relaxation with little personal impact. The textual needs to resurface for personal engagement but that ought not replace the local scholar/sage to speak to. Religious communities still have this but this exists everywhere. Someone to confide in and ask for direction. Someone who has experience and can guide. This is the oral world of necessity. Not some virtual guru but a friendly voice answering the call. 

The oral and textual can live side by side. The textual of the other can be scrutinised. Harmonising efforts for truth. While advice can be found amongst the locality. Orality is important but it is a central facet of intimate connection. The lesson from a friendly voice can be the change. Textual can override the influencer orality to then redirect the oral to its ancient roots. 

The Great Wall of China

By: Jonathan Seidel

Symbols and letters: Chinese literate traditionalism   

The Chinese language doesn’t have an alphabet. Unlike its asian contemporaries Japanese and Korean both have alphabets. The linguistic explanation is logographic versus syllabic. The Chinese model is quite ancient while the Japanese and Korean is quite more modern. Yet the syllabic languages use Chinese characters. The uniqueness of the Chinese language is its longstanding un-alphabetic paradigm. Even the Egyptians hailed for their hieroglyphics eventually evolved their system. What is so special about China?

Chinese hanzi is used throughout the asian continent. Both Korea and Japan utilise these characters for their languages. Korea created its own language hangul in the fifteenth century and for Japan hiragana in the fifth century. The use of Chinese characters may suggest the belated effort of a writing system. Writing became relevant for political and technological advancements. Its necessity grew out of urbanisation. For China it began during the Shang dynasty as for Korea it began under the Joseon Dynasty. A sense of nationalism as well as coordination was critical for political logistics. Since the empire needed to keep records of people and taxes. Pictograms which preceded the alphabet was a measure of symbolically recording data. The need to ensure vast quantities of the past whether treaties or philosophies was printed on tablets. Chiseled into the stone from right to left. The larger the group the more necessary the announcement to be encoded. 

Pictures were the first written symbols. Each of the classic empires had a similar pictographic theory. Each of them began by drawing a fish or a bird. In contrast to other cultures, Egypt’s drawings are more exact; they look like drawing while others look like stick figures. Pictographs developed into logographic signs to expand the language. The evolution of Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Chinese languages slowly morphed their depictions of the figure into a sign. The sign was an ideogram similarly to mathematical symbols such as 1 means one. Just by looking at the number the viewer is aware of its meaning. The same is of the Chinese characters. Fish is pronounced “yu” but the symbol is the convincing part. Chinese has over five thousand characters. Characters that symbolise various features in nature. Instead of drawing a fish or a tree every time, draw a few lines in a certain shape to denote the image itself. Just as the sound bird inflects an image of the creature so does the character. This is not an easy system which is why Chinese is so difficult to learn. A way to ease was to combine symbols in a similar vein that combined pictures would mean a new thing. Chinese already does this with dawn combining two characters. 

Japanese kana is a syllabary system in which Chinese characters change from concept to syllable. When seeing a character it will be sounded out instead of applying an image to it. Similar to an alphabet but different. In the alphabet each character makes a sound, individualistically recorded but the syllabary character makes a consonant plus a vowel sound. So in English, two letters are necessary for the sound ka (“k” and “a”) but in Japanese only a single character is necessary. In this way there are less quote on quote letters to be used in a syllabary system. They operate in a similar way as a phrase of letters or symbols will be sounded out. Both grouped characters will sound the same but spelled differently. Japan took on a sound-based system. Even the Egyptians in their hieroglyphics turned into a syllabary system. Hieratic served as the cursive form turning pictograms into loose depictions and then into symbols. The demotic was its successor more easily written with ink on papyrus. It was extended for public use. Simplifying its parental style for others to utilise easily. Coptic was the final nail in the coffin turning the symbolic language into a lettering alphabet. The hellenised influence marked the shift. The addition of autonomous vowels properly distanced itself from its ancient heritage.

The first alphabet goes back to the Phoenicians who inspired the greeks to make their own in the wrong direction. Well even before the Phoenicians, unskilled labourers compiled it because hieroglyphics were too complex. Letters were independent and bunched together to make words which symbolised objects. Yet the sounds mustered by the vowels were not clear and were based on the reader’s inference. In this regard the spoken word was projected on the page and reflected back to the speaker. The word was marked by oral understanding. The difference between the Torah scroll and a Chumash will be blatantly obvious. The scroll has no vowels and the reader must guess but the Chumash presents the vowels to tell the reader how to pronounce the word. Classical arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew were abjads with prior knowledge or context to interpret the word while today they are impure. A great hebrew example would be “zaken” is old and “zakan” which is a beard. Sometimes the sounding is different based on the chronology of the words. In English letters are vowels but that is not the case in the ancient alphabets. Each character has its own sound but that sound is not obvious from the lettering like English. Technically the greeks have the first alphabet given this adage to the current English language.

Alphabetisation is a simplification of the syllabary and even more so of logographs. The letters are to make words that stand for objects. It is twice removed from the object itself. Instead of a symbol whether a picture or an ideogram, it defines the object. Yet to explain a situation various images are necessary to detail the picture. Some are simple other situations are not easy. Ideograms are also not so simple in this regard. A character mixed with other objectification are combined to explain the situation. In an oral society it is more intact. The character phraseology is easy to discern as a reflection of the verbalism but the complexity and advancement of recorded data desires a more advanced system. While this may be a decorative approach, dynasties of eras have survived in China. It may have more to do with expansion and cultural pluralism than primitive simplicity. The birth in the eastern Mediterranean region along the fertile crescent makes sense with a frequent tradespeople who travelled through the region. Spreading their alphabet marked their territory. For an expansion of trade a simpler use of characters to explain enhances literacy. Sharing a literacy with others is a democratising force to discuss with foreigners. A system other cultures could adopt and transfer goods simpler. 

An alphabetical system beyond trade was also helpful for the commoners though it not shocking that with the advent of imperial rule of Assyria, Babylon and Persia the use of Aramaic was nationwide. Influenced by the Phoenician alphabet it gradually spread across the kingdom. Diverging into various dialects across different nations. Even if the script was different the sounds were similar. Paleo-Hebrew of the Israelites and Canaanites is identical to the Phoenician alphabet. The current form of Hebrew is a modified form of the Aramaic alphabet (in the Talmud there is a distinction between Hebrew script and Aramaic script). When hellenisation rose Greece sent by their alphabet and when Rome rose they inquired of the Latin alphabet. While not entirely identical the ironic similarities between the Phoenician greek and latin is genuine. The greek alpha and latin a is a right side up Phoenician alep. For bet, the greek and latin added a second loop, for giml greek turned the letter around while latin changed the shape to a curve.  Delta is the same as dales though the latin is different but he is backwards for both greek and latin. Though the old italic Etruscan alphabet already made room for the delta to be a d but turning it sideways while lambda was turned forty five degrees east to then be straightened out. Most semitic alphabets varied slightly from the Phoenician with similar sounds while the greeks simply inverted them to write in the opposite direction. Each variation is small and gradual creation of the seaport accounts.

While all the alphabets were swarming, China remained with its logographic creation. Unnerved and unconfined of the shifts. With its centralised isolationist mentality it rarely needed to alter its language. Japan and Korea wishing to distance themselves sought alternatives. By then trade had reached and linguistic information was well expanded. The combination of symbols and letters was a nice touch to combine the western and eastern halves in an eurasian combination. For the Canaanite workers in Egypt hieroglyphics were implausible. They had little relation to the culture and older found it difficult to read. In a sense, the lower class invented the most profound evolution in history. China’s strict hierarchy is unable to reckon with the historical plunges of bottom-up western progression. There is certain ideological input into maintaining the tradition of old. China still uses its old ways because it wasn’t hampered by the outside influences in the same manner. It did have its share of external impacts but linguistically it remained part of its own world. Away from the Middle Eastern crowd that turned into the European centre did not require such noble shifts. China was filled with various dialects but all under the same rubric. Orality was very strong and writing was for the select elites. China remained true to form throughout the generations restricting venturing off into the abyss. 

To foreigners the Chinese language is vexing. Head-scratching peculiar signs drawn with precision. The foreigner wouldn’t know where to begin. The characters so foreign how do they sound. Yet the insider recognises the ease of the language. The characters symbolise objects; it makes sense visually. Emphasising meaning at the expense of transparency. Yet its transparency is difficult for foreigners. A young child can point to the character for blue or fire while struggling to sound out the words. To some degree the difficulty of character quantity may have led literacy rates to be minimal until the recent century. Whether this is imperialistic or merely a marker of oral centricity is debatable. Given the extensive strokes to write characters literacy was not necessarily desirable. China did quite well without a writing system. There is an anti-democratic notion in the lapse of literacy but individuality as well as protest is not foreign. There was a strict hierarchy embedded in the social stature which divided the literate from the illiterate. To some extent its isolationism allowed its literacy to remain on the fringes at the same time it was a weapon of the elite to remain atop the food chain. Though its restricted literacy muddled technological advancement, it maintained a communal fire and moral affinity affixed into the core of society.   

The pride of china refused the convenience of alphabetising. Yet to some degree it is an inevitable part of their isolating stance. If the alphabet was created by illiterate workers finding a better solution only to be utilised throughout the expansive imperial rule of various cultures. The letters are similar, the sounds are identical. China didn’t have that issue staying true to its successive rule. There is a deep level of respect for keeping the age-old method of literacy. For keeping to their particularistic structure. Adorning the quasi-oral nature of their characters. Keeping the image alive even if it’s expansive and complex. It is cultural and unique to its isolated history.

Visual Clues

By: Jonathan Seidel

Ancient societies were built on oral foundations. The lack of written excess bolstered an oral society. Today much of our society is written. Yet oral remnants still remain. Our society is no longer nor ever written entirely. Even if society is legalised built on a constitutional bedrock, it does change the oral parameters persistent as the core and daily methodology.

Orality falls under the experiential motif split into two categories verbal and visual. For all human history orality has been the cultural centre of society. Orality is best described as verbal communication. Parables and hymns were the original resource of communication. Yet orality has always been at the centre of education. Despite textbooks filled with the history of information, we still have schools with teachers as well as online content. Education continues to be verbal even when there is apparent simpler ways of learning. Yet this is not about being stuck in the past. It is about teaching on a level. A book only provides the basic information. It provides formulas and definitions. It rarely leads tangentially out of context. A teacher amasses an array of knowledge that can be fluidly nurtured in the student. The student does not only read but asks questions from an elder perspective. From one who has read more than them. Someone who specialises in the field. The plain words in the textbook are not always clear to the student. The reader may require a deeper analysis that a teacher with the extensive vocabulary and interpersonal skills can produce. 

Humans talk everyday. We communicate with one another on the basic of oral trajectory. To attain info we discuss and converse. There is no book for dialogue. It is an event of fluid vocality. The intentionality of oral communication is its unsubstantiated unknown future. Discussions begin and where they lead is for time to tell. Yet they are informative. Whether the information is surface or deep, it is still knowledge received. Verbalism is methodical but also coincidental. We talk to others with a goal in mind but that which we desire is not achieved through the exact means we plan. Sometimes it is but once the words leave the lips all is possible. Orality has no rules. Standards or manners are relevant but no embedded rules. One can choose to respond or not. Fundamentally, orality is a mixture of an intent that has an undisclosed next step. The flow of consciousness becomes ever automatic in extensive conversation. It becomes intuitive to react by engaging the other. 

Verbal orality has been misused. Politics has corrupted media. It is a free for all who can brainwash the most people. Faces on a monitor exclaim such and such occurred and the horror of their inaccuracies has hit a new low. Lying news anchors, politicians, gurus. Whomever, it is an individual contest for self elevation. Who couldn’t have seen this coming. With people clinging for a community, people would manipulate others for their own gain. The technological word does not work in print no more. Even print can’t be trusted. History is written by the victor, politics is a sham. The matrix is real and we are in the thick of it. Everything is hardcore relative. They hypocritical disrespect is astonishing. An oral community transcends the written bounds to be united by word. Connected on a higher existential level. This is the greatest lost. To feel connected. To feel appreciated. Then to be stabbed in the back. To be lied to. To be fooled. Orality has bee weaponised to feed off the weaklings. Manipulating the public with oral messages when the anchor or president is reading off of a teleprompter. A way of overpowering those gullible enough to accept the nonsense soothing from their lips.

When the verbal faculty is misconstrued the visual one also becomes abandoned. Mimicking is a byproduct of visualisation of a verbal and non-verbal act. Some procedures are innate replicas. The classic monkey see, monkey do. No verbal exchange is necessary. Yet much of all else requires verbal communication. Especially when an imitation is a gross misappropriation. Tweaks need to be made to reconcile imprecise action. Perfect copies are negligent and communication fixes the adequacies. Verbal is directed to the visual. The senses are linked but does not mean a blind man will not perfect the motion but his personal knowledge is mitigated by absent sight. The experiential is oral. The blind man can also partake in the oral community. The deaf man as well. Though sign language is verbal communication even without vocality. Its use of words or gestures to subjects is verbal in nature. The oral community is embedded in a transitionary model of linkage. It speaks to the relative cultural reception of the event. Communication is not just floating words but received criteria. Internalised info is marked by its absorption of knowledge and response accuracy. 

If the verbal is untrustworthy then the visual is also distorted. Sight is hypnotised with propaganda content to sway public perception. The visual cannot be trusted as imagery is weaponised to clown the public. The oral community is communicative in its separate identity. It is polarising the masses into identical voices speaking past one another. Verbalism is a critical aspect of existential connection. Within the conversation an encounter is struck. The auditory must differentiate the truth sayers  and false deniers. In an oral makeup there is an experiential tie to the communal gathering. A trust between people. An oral society relies on its information gurus. Those with resources are they who have information to provide. This is personal knowledge to be shared with the public but they hide it. They hold it close to their chests. They spew jargon to gain mass hysteria in their product. For people to give them a higher purpose in the institutions. A magician never reveals their secrets. Follow me and I’ll teach them to you, they say. I will have your back among other fake prophecies.                 

Visual apprehension is discoloured by its empirical disinterest. Can we really trust what we see? This is no Cartesian miscalculation. While our eyes honestly can make out clear images, the media plays tricks on our delusions. We are presented with elusive fascination that mildly corresponds to the basis of realistic aura. The disrespectful imaginative news-bites cradled in swift segments propels the sheerest of propaganda. Reality is fractured into minuscule hyperbole. Promised aspirations shrouded in unimaginable arrogance. Speaking in sermonic hymns engulfing the mass hysteria. Clever one-liners arousing the cerebral cortex. Orality is today deceptive and mysterious. A medieval clerical defiance of hellish science. With little uptake for moral adherence, there is little holding anyone to companionship. Subtle alterations in the visual representation by coding the image with verbal abuse. Verbal assault is not violent offence but deceptive malice. A forger expense of scenic inquisition. 

Deviance is the enemy of cohesion. It builds a false reality. Pummelled into the nervous centre of scandalous attraction. The communicative identity is fallacious. It is not the whole truth but a slice. Truths are mixed with falsities. Much journalism is intentionally skewed ideologically, there is clear ignorance to the contrary. Ideological preservation is the highest priority. Anything that impedes on its stability will feel the wrath of the reactionary delay. Blinded by motives, the full truth is missed. Orality laced with prudent accessories seduces obscurity. Communication is muddled if ears are closed or if speech is deliberate. The goal is to produce followers not independent minds. To flourish in uniform potentiality. 

Nordic Education

By: Jonathan Seidel

Watching the new Vikings series displayed vikings who were clearly illiterate, while the christians were enveloped in literacy. The christian masses could not read but there was a progression to read and write in order to understand the bible. The christians saw it as a medium to understanding God. Many Scandinavian  countries learned to read and write from the church’s push. The church’s involvement was likely agenda driven to replace heathens with good christians. It was not solely to standardise them but cease the pagan nonsense. 

The textualised driven agenda sought to abolish the mythic wardrobe that prevented them from accepting christ. The textualisation was presented as liberating from nepotism. It was a spiritualised intellectual fulfilment  It was also a way for gleaning the mythic “anti-christ” ideas. The legal codex and textualisation were wrought with absent mythological voice. This seems to be due to christian oversight. Yet it also may be the centralisation on codification of mundane matters moved away from the mythology they were so used to. Law was so tied with orality so too theology. The literacy movement came to mock the old as a metaphorical use. Even to see Christianity and its writing as the correct matter. The christianisation of Scandinavian citizenry was not from christian violence but education (though presumably polemical).

Viking orality was unique and powerful. It not only taught their origin but also their way of life. The medieval tease defines mythology as a fable. It laughs at the lunacy of lore. That being said the christian narratives aren’t so realistic either. Nevertheless this scam of polemical prioritisation overpowered the mythical realism. The celestial was replaced monotheistically with ever grace. Today, mythologies are supplied the same christianised pogrom. Myths were narratives akin to ancient science. The magnitude of literalism is debated but it was their understanding of the world. Coherently expressed and passionately internalised. The denial of these mythologies not only did away with their beliefs but their heritage. Mythology is not solely the celestial remarks but the historical transmission through the generations. A totality of the peoplehood.

Oral magnification presents the full blend of the story. It is transparent and covers the emotive aspect of the story and history. Preaching around a campfire combines the necessary hand gestures and interest to relay the story. The mythology is what defines them. Literacy cements the idea but it also brands it inadequate. It placed folklore in the written pretext. Placing it in the natural realm. Forging the bond between letter and narration undermines the telos of the oral nature. Folklore is oral narration of history and law. It is the order to the trans-generational tribal commitment. Mythologies is more than stories it is a social contract. There is a lore that binds everyone but it is the social bind that unifies that tribe. 

The misnomer is so apparent. Even when law was canonised, folklore remained oral. Law may be cemented for order and continuity but the stories must stay pure of textualisation. It is dangerous. It steals the beauty and experiential power of the law. The physiological spark is in the encounter with oral destiny. There is a personal transformation that transcends the static literacy. Literacy delimits the oral fascination. One is not one with the law but subsumed to a finite piece of paper. Providing constitutional crystallisation is better but the written element diminishes the participant and the eternal law. The law particularly is a manner of behaviour. It is a way of life not an action to complete. A checklist to denote is an undermining falsified accusation. The law encoded not only alters the legal style but also displaces its internal mechanism. It is no longer organically enveloped in the overall mythos. It is an external criteria. 

Jews did a good job of maintaining the law as an integral factor. Seeing and studying the great legal anthologies of Mishnah Tosefta and Talmud are just a start of recovering the internal prowess of law. The canonisation was crippling but salvaged with a legal based future. Justifying a revolutionary shift yet linked to old saved the heritage. Legal hermeneutics changed but the measure of authenticity endured. The law is the way of life and Jews did not move away from it. Infusing the new external code with direction and folklore prowess. The legal prioritisation as a manifestation of the true tradition was a start to brand law as Jewish. Its external accumulation was insufficiently separated. 

A further example is the side-by-side folklore presentation. A visualisation of sages participating in the law but this was only the beginning. They re-mythologised the divine picture. If the law was going to be presented externally then a new internal metric was necessary. They presented God as obeying the law he commanded. One such example is God dawning phylacteries. The sages tied the codified law with the mythos. No matter how much the law seemed to leave their grasp they retied its strings to the divine commander. Folklore was expanded to include more lore to cover the external legal danger. The oral communication was under attack. Literacy needed an oral counterpart. The extended mythologisation played that role perfectly. The Talmud contains more extensive anthropomorphic detail than the bible does. A new salvational attempt.

The Jews unlike the vikings maintained a sort of oral communication. The continued resistance to canonisation by talmudic sages and geonim also aided in this paradigm. They also ascribed great force to custom. Custom is an oral mode of legal affiliation. It is not coded in any text . It is the common element pervading the society evolving with the times. Customs have been textualised but the legal centricity opens its heart to customs that have immense power. The oral fascination with custom is the autonomous or communal acceptance of a norm incorporated. Judicial discretion accepts this custom and it becomes ingrained in the traditional canon. Customs have grave force and are magnified by their allegiance. These roles are passed verbally from parent to child. The oral aspect never departed. 

The orality and/or mythology could never be expunged as the system provided outlets to maintain oral credibility. Custom was that method of oral perpetuity. A legally binding verbal association. It was the sensus comminus. At times over powering the law. The law is a codified paper that does not always meet the socio-linguistic community. The oral factor keeps with the times and the sociological era of the peoplehood. It travels with them in time asserting its loyalty to the people’s ongoing commitment to their heritage. Even as the supernal aspects drew less appreciation, the law prevailed in its core value. Whether or not people were so observant there was a kernel of custom that kept them tied to their tradition. The law is divinely spiritualised and the custom further bolsters the internal mechanics of “Jewish mythology”. Orality persists in the Jewish mind’s vision of continuity. 

Oral Mastery

By: Jonathan Seidel

Oral superiority spills into five categories: the mutual experience, the imagination, the influence, the emotion and the active role. 

Orality historically precedes literacy due to the difficulty to read. Reading and speaking a language are two different aspects. Language fluidity is memorisation. Making sounds is natural from the baby coos to childish bye-byes. The baby hears and responds. Undeveloped he cannot articulate the words fully. Able to coherently comprehend leads to mimicking. Much of speaking is copying parents. Parents but a sentence together so does the child. The natural sound-making is practiced from a young age. Its routine exposure only educates further. 

Oral messaging is naturally internalised. A parent reading a bed time story or lullaby is rhythmic and narrational. The child imagination understands the words and their meaning. The oral communication is passed to their child to his understanding. The listener actively participates by fostering a movie-like reality in his mind. The simplicity of the story and their empowering energy captures the child’s limited knowledge. They lack sophistication and prestige. The spoken word is interpreted in the listener’s ear and into his mind. He makes the story a film to imagine the plot line. 

Reading presents an extra step. The words on the page need to be translated in the mind and then create the imaginative focus. Reading focuses on the text as a translation. The words are a wall before the imagination. Only once able to sound out the words, interpreting them in of themselves and then in the context of the sentence makes the inaudible understandable. This same process is applied to books written in foreign languages. the word itself needs to be understood and then in its context. In the Jewish lexicography, the talmud is split by Rashi’s semantic reading of the Aramaic word within sentence context and Tosafot’s semiotic reading in literature context. Is there one or does multiple translations, does  context change its definition? The same goes for the child.

A foreign language is inaudible but orality comes with external action or description. A book does not provide visual confirmation. It is a guess of the reader. The listener recognises pictures, facial expressions and emotions. It is not a bland slate. Speaking has fluid style. There is a right way of speaking and a wrong way of speaking. Though non-natives have discrepancies in speech and different dialectics i.e. Arabic arise, images ease the translative burden. Divergencies are inevitable but vary socially and geographically. 

Orality is unique to a culture. Arabic has multiple dialects that aggravate communication while the written form remains distinct. While Moroccans and Egyptians will read the same word, it will sound differently. “Fusha” and “Amiyya” are the written and spoken forms of Arabic. Amiya differs due to advanced vocabulary and pronunciation. The encoded language in newspapers is collectively understood but the geographical distance and external influence causes misunderstanding. There is a language game of sorts and culturally organic model. The internal cohesiveness of attuned folk empowers the special relationship between them. The fact that Moroccans and Egyptians don’t understand one another only furthers the particularity of their respective dialects. The spoken word is sacred to the sole interpreter. 

Even English speakers find nuance. Many people struggle understanding the hard Scottish accent except those who speak it. Additionally the differences between American language and stand with England is far more obvious. Geographical distance and ideological isolation also may have assisted in this. Yet many brits are accustomed to american slang while not true vice versa. Brits are far more exposed to American entertainment. This in turn makes speech much more audible. Combining imagery with exposure and everything seems much clearer. To be fair asking for directions in a different dialect can hurt transparent communication. Though a first time exposure isn’t going to help anyone. Even for children, routine is necessary to full comprehend. 

The spoken word transcends the grip of limited literacy. Look at Shakespeare versus Hemingway. The terminological use differs. Books are a manifestation of their time. Reading requires more skill because it is not the natural flow of words. It forces the child to sound out and then make heads or tails of its meaning. The spoken word is evolutionary and can lead to the extinction of language. Hebrew was deemed a dead language for generations, only preserved in books and prayer. Still its ability to survive lay in its continued verbal and written usage. Though not used commonly conversationally with others it was with God. Yet its usage preserved its phonology. 

Though there are difference between ashkenazi, Sephardi and yemenite Jews. Do to their social land geographical distance they produced different readings. Ashkenazim do not distinguish between ales and akin while sephardi jews don’t between text kaf and kuf while yemenites do both. This does not mean that ashkenazi are wrong (though we cannot know for sure). He lack of semitic similarity for ashkenazim put them at a disadvantage.  Yet, concerning vowels yemenite is the worst with only five  while Ashkenazim have eight like the Biblical Hebrew. So each focused on one side: either consonants or vowels. Though ashkenazim were far from a semitic language like Arabic they maintained a traditional Hebrew dialect by writing in Hebrew and focusing on the peshat of the text. The Andalusians wrote in Arabic while the French wrote in Hebrew. The latter were also extensive grammarians. Using that knowledge to further their knowledge of biblical text. 

It is important to recognise the necessary fluidity of language for translating literacy. Despite the grammarians efforts, their semantic readings undervalued the semiotic function. Synchronic investigation melded by Mishnaic authorities and exegetical traditions promotes the ancient reading. The semiotic interaction attacks the text at face value disregarding it. It debunks the philological attempts to portray a text with a time syntactically. Ironically, the Tosafists did not apply their talmudic model to the bible. They focused sentence context instead of literature context. The genuine translation is one passed down not studied. The Andalusian model captured the talmudic peshat from its predecessors. The semiotic model is esoteric and provides an internal structure that if read with medieval eyes would misunderstand. Semiotics preserves the oral character behind the text as the rightful manifestation.  

In the long run, the Spanish oral hermeneutic maintained earlier transmissions with the studious effort to uncover what may have been. The French grammarians focused on the text as a literacy when in fact it was an oral compilation. The textual explanation were divergent from the text but as a result of a misunderstanding. The text was the source for the pre-existing allegory or law.  The narration preceded the codex. The emergence of ladino as well as yiddish muddled efforts to maintain pure Hebrew, still the hermeneutical aspect remained due to the oral transmission. Devoted to secure orality is confounded in the game of telephone. It is possible to deviate but consistency breads authenticity.      

Textual exposure merely provides semantic phraseology to connect. It under appreciates the massive link in oral symmetry. Language evolves but it can also be honed. Language may shift but not necessarily the stories. Orality is is not solely speech but transmission. The interpretative community from the oral sphere is sacred in its own right. It can only be determined by those who understand the language and the intent. The Hebrew language developed and with Aramaic overwhelming Hebrew dialogue, Hebrew was kept alive in the outskirts. Each group did a good job of tending to the discrepancies between letters. Phonology was lauded but using that model of “authentic Hebrew” back into the text does not work identically. The interpretant cannot sole pronounce but also interpret. 

As language evolves the stories are changed by the words characterised. Think of “simcha” it has no English counterpart. We term it “joy” but we are deluding the proper translation because we are not aware of the original mark. Mistranslations grow and stories are changed. Jews having horns was a mistranslation without the aid of a proper dictionary (though its debated if St. Jerome was aware of the true meaning). The grammarian return to text posits either their own mind or the textual intuition. Playing by literacy rules a text must infer x. Yet this incalculable for an original oral text. The only way to understand is in light of its historic foundation. Philology may point to an oral framework but the translation synchronically follows its literary genius not another culture’s. Oral features flow to their death in literacy. Phonology is incongruent with the oral factor. Even the syntactical layer is imperfect. 

An enduring push for pragmatics helps better convey the orality. Socio-linguistic meaning heightens the oral periphery. The signification and contextual layer are imperative for proper transmission. As it provides intent and factorial basis to the literate monopoly. The text does not necessitate clarity. Especially when its plain reading is syntactically problematic and metaphorically emboldened. The is a deeper factor intentioned and marked. Looking at literacy alone will not avail the issue. It is the easy way out to translate literally. Yet the wrong way to do so. The text is primed for interpretation. The wisdom compilation  methodologically promotes a narrational cohesiveness. The surface reading is an incompetent reading. The pragmatics incorporates the myriad of variables into the totality of the law. The narration that follows promises to give colour to a bleak picture. It lights up the statement into a portrait.