Qoute #1

The technology expands beyond this "priestly" class when it is adapted to familiar functions often associated with an older accepted form of communication (71).

The target audience for new literary technology is normally a very small and selective audience and starts with a very limited communications base. With the high price of new technology and consumer frugalness, many inventors keep new technology to themselves and their target audience first before mass marketing. When the first VCR was produced, it could be purchased at the cost of a house and car note combined. The first high definition television was astronomical in cost. As competitors copied/invented their own brands of these products that were cheaper/cost effective, the price became affordable to the general public. Though pricing made these items marketable and affordable to the general public, one marketing strategy that no one can predict is attitude/aptitude. People do not like to give up their comfort zones. New technology has stiffened the stand of old stalwarts.

Some people (believe it or not), still have dial phones over touch or push button phones. Some people do not own or even want a cell phone. You would think that the majority of these people are elderly, but many yuoth today resist technology either because of illiteracy or no interest. Many elderly resent cell phones because it seperates them from a by gone era they refuse to relinquish. They are the evil neccesities of invention to them. So technology in its greatest aspirations is geared toward age appropriateness and discourse appropriation. Those who have the means enjoy technology at ease in their private spaces (home, business, etc.), while those who lack the means may have limited access (school, library, etc.).

With the potential fear and harm that may come from computer technology/usage as evidenced in modern day computer piracy, identity theft, people spreading computer viruse to make political statements or whatever, the distrust of modern technology can be understood. Yet progress cannot be afraid of the abusers of technology. A nation that promotes the best in civilized applications must have the best for all of its citizens. I advocate that fear should not be a proponent of viewing the worst of technology, but at it advantages.

The discourse proponent of technology has an obligation to train the best future leaders for the American people. That is the paradox of discourse with the duty to train the best in the proposed dominant discourse, but the best aren't trained in the discourse that is not dominant. New technology does cost, and minority persons who cannot afford such cost will not be included in its initial usage. The computer labs in Glendale, Waukesha, New Berlin, and other well off communities do not resemble the computers they have in the labs at MPS. The technology is quite different in cost and efficiency.

Do writing and computer literacy go hand in hand? As technologies yes, as equals no! You cannot research the internet through your pencil ( at least not as of yet). A computer cannot write in cursive letters (again, at least not as of yet). So the concepts of writing as a technology and computers as a technology works well together. This stands upright until someone invents something else in the future where we will all have to leave our comforts and start learning again!

Separations

Ong says that writing separates interpretation from data. Writing is concrete as opposed to oral translation. In an oral conversation one can give information to someone and when passed on to two other people you probably will get two other interpretations of the same spoken word. What is written stands as said and cannot be changed unless the writer himself/herself changes what is written in their drafting of the article. It will stand through history and time. Oral interpretations change by embelishment or imagination. This isn't always a bad thing in that some cultures use this to inspire and encourage non-writing individuals to preserve their oral traditions.

Separations

One way that writing seperates past from present is the forms of speech used. When the early settlers came to America, they wrote and spoke what was known as King's English. When we read books that use this type of english we humor ourselves with the pronunciations but we wouldn't and couldn't use this as an effective form of communication in English 201. Historically, in oral communications, whether past or present words are excluded to get a point across or that do not fit the explanation you are trying to relay. This can depend on who you are talking to. In African American culture some words are changed that may not be proper english in a conversation, but the person who you are talking to can relate to what you are talking about whereas someone from outside the culture may not.

Quote

Writing can divide society -high language usage and low language usage. This relates to dominant discourses in its application as the higher language being that of those who were in control. Women have worked their way into the mainstream of higher language due to achieving academic success. Yet, the disparity in high language theory and application is still one of those who safeguard, or are the gatekeepers to screen and disallow those who are not qualified to share their goods. Gee stated that they are very protective of their goods, those who are of the dominant discourses. It is demeaning in one sense to say that women have the lower rung of language. It takes a high venacular to instruct and raise a child, carry on functionally in running a household, and dabble socially. It may not be Latin or Greek, but would most women use that in the course of their day anyway.

Ong: Writing as Artificial

Ong presents an interesting commentary on the premise of writing as an aid to oral understanding. The paradox that writing as a dead form of interpretation, removed from the living world, amid its rigidity, and thus assuring it of an everlasting life is quite thought provoking when you think of words as life in the spoken form. When someone orally explains something to you, they may use certain mannerisms that give you a vivid interpretation, or the words can conjure up thoughts and insight through their deep peircing enthusiasm and vocal tone. The written word has the opposite effect in that it has no life as an inanimate object, except the life that you can visualize and take your imagination to places that only you can navigate.