There was so much information in the Deibert reading that I felt the need to focus on small and probably insignificant parts. I liked the over all story more than the actual information. It never occur ed to me that the church controlled all written work because clergy members were basically the only people that could read and write. With the church's ability to control all texts it must have been quite easy to exert power over the people. I also found it interesting that writing was said to be the trait of a god. "In the point of view of those who first developed writing-- a capability that 'could not be credited to mere mortals.' " It was once though that the gods invented the alphabet so writing was a form of divine inspiration. This idea as pleasing as it must have sounded at the time, now just seems trite. This goes to show how very few people understood writing. It's surprising to me that writing was revered in this way because in modern times writing has always been merely an everyday part of life. The fact that writing was thought to have medicinal purposes was just absurd. People prone to fevers would wear strips of parchment around their necks with a small prayer written on them. It is not the prayer that I find absurd because many religious people pray for good health, but the idea that writing the prayer and wearing on your body could cure you as if by magic... i don't get it.
I've successfully gotten through about 1/4 of this reading and I've already written a bunch of nonsense and arbitrary ideas. I'll have to finish blogging later because it's time for class!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We can also see the power that came about the church though their monopoly ability to read and write. The printing press threatened this monopoly, but also created many other ideas and concepts such as that of bureaucracy. Print was able to create powers amongst new people, it was able to push upon a new move from futile society to that of nation states, and it also pushed on the creation of the Protestant Reform, all in just Deiberts readings alone.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it may seem strange to us that actual words themselves hold power, it is easy to understand why the Church would want people under such an illusion. The more significance was placed on the written word, the more power the Church established for itself since they were essentially people's only source for literacy.
ReplyDeleteAs for the writings on parchments to be worn by the ill or the writings on the swords to be carried by soldiers seems strange, there are still certain customs such as these in our culture even today. Soldiers in wars today choose to wear a necklace of the Cross or the Star of David, both of which are essentially representations of words. We do not view this as strange since those who wear them do so with the belief that this symbol will keep them safe, as the people back then believed the words on the parchments or the letters on the swords would have the same effect. It is merely the means by which such protection is carried out today which has changed.
I agree that Diebert's reading contained a mass of information to the development of writing. I too wasn't aware of the Roman Catholic Church's monopoly over written documentation. However, I'm not in disbelief of the power and strength words and letters were deemed to boast. The idea sound strange but just as Tsalimnia touched on, it had the same symbolic effect as people of today that wear crosses, rosaries,or have scriptures tattooed on their bodies (which is a contradiction of itself and another topic).
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, their traditions and practices may seem strange but, just like most things, it really isn't that much different from what is practiced today. In fact, it may have just revolutionized to stay abreast of our ever-changing civilization.
That's really interesting to compare the idea of words holding magic to things like crosses and rosaries. It kind of helps me understand that a little better.
ReplyDeleteThe mere fact that there was so much information makes nothing you choose to focus on small or insignificant! :D
ReplyDeleteThis week's reading was a free-for-all, an elephantine carcass for all us intellectual hyenas to pounce on and shred into more easily digestible pieces. And though we are relatively of the same breed, our striped patterns differ one from the other (hint: that's a metaphor for the various disciplines with which each one of us approaches a given text).
Your particular slant (which I found so exciting I couldn't believe we haven't mentioned the idea sooner!) is one that struck me as poignant:
"I liked the overall story more than the information."
Do you have any idea how brilliant that is! That's essentially what Deibert has here presented before us. A story! And a compelling one at that. Scott would argue that he has censored it to "leave out the naughty bits" but at any rate, we are essentially reading a narrative.
Which brings me to my blog this week:
http://th3giv3r-text.blogspot.com/2009/10/two-critics-one-marxist-other-literary.html
I hope you'll find it entertaining as a commentary on the fragmentation of intellectualism and the petty quarrels between disciplines that lead to so much animosity in the academic world. Guess which one is inspired by your approach...
:)
-M.C.
I too found the power that the people of the past found in words to be utterly amazing and foreign to me as well, seeing the relatively arbitrary use of "words" today. However, I think that we need to realize that even if we don't realize it, words do have power, not to necessarily heal us on their own, but many people believe in meditation and chanting to help cure some illnesses. So, I guess even in today's society, words do have power, but it is not in a universally acceptable way - it is individually that we perceive the power of words.
ReplyDelete