/lit/ - Literature

>>12633394
I'm so into oral culture I don't even hear these squiggles. What was that about ?moot?

>>12615521
No it's not you cretin! It's sad that we have so many books when so few offer so much. Back to the Orality.

>>12579011
Secondary orality comes with certain biases but does not get the same negative review as secondary images. DFW was the last in a line of many to critique The Image, but many people have discussed this subject before him and have been wrong.
>>12577602
Nostrodomus

>>12479365
the top of the mountain can not be known and therefore I must continue off the edge of the world.

>>12449843

>>12407836
media biases, epistemology

>>12408157
>Shahrazad Ali
Any other recs. for her. Got a friend who's into that. Not the religion so much, though. Based Islamic Stacy just telling me what to do is based.

>>12374724
>Oral vs secondary oral
What must be repeated to be kept still? Why must this be so exhausting, staying in place? Is their logic in oral cultures? Or is it only when the grain is stored we mark a common meaning? What of this secondary orality?

>>12203700
sounds like different kinds of infinity a la Cantor. Maybe a good discussion to have with some that always see x as x is to explain the problem of concrete abstractions, or abstract realities. one infinity plus another larger infinity, or in this case, one infinity with different qualities but the possibility of the same values

so a polyphony in philosophy results in scitzo life, but dostoyeskey is top tier writer cause his scitzo shit has use value? Hippocrites, fucking hippos. and worst part is that you believe you are supirior.

>>12049102
Between this and Jorden Peteerson videos, my idealization has manefested fully these last two or three years, resulting in a satisfying ahhh when I embrace the moving picture. It is terrible that none know this and other ref as much as I'd wish for them all over. being a ref-punk is hard when context is monitised and so not much of a go. anyhoow, this is me - just add in some JP and some situationist blah blah and then finish it off with a overly modern, thhoroughly pretention reading of F. Kittler. I suppose I'm completely mutter to none now eh? good film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydsCLsXjNVo

One might argue (as does Finnegan 1977, p. 16) that the
term ‘literature’, though devised primarily for works in writing, has
simply been extended to include related phenomena such as
traditional oral narrative in cultures untouched by writing. Many
originally specific terms have been so generalized in this way. But
concepts have a way of carrying their etymologies with them
forever. The elements out of which a term is originally built
usually, and probably always, linger somehow in subsequent
meanings, perhaps obscurely but often powerfully and even
irreducibly. Writing, moreover, as will be seen later in detail, is a
particularly pre-emptive and imperialist activity that tends to
assimilate other things to itself even without the aid of etymologies.
Though words are grounded in oral speech, writing tyrannically
locks them into a visual field forever. A literate person, asked to
THE ORALITY OF LANGUAGE 11
think of the word ‘nevertheless’, will normally (and I strongly
suspect always) have some image, at least vague, of the spelled-out
word and be quite unable ever to think of the word ‘nevertheless’
for, let us say, 60 seconds without adverting to any lettering but
only to the sound. This is to say, a literate person cannot fully
recover a sense of what the word is to purely oral people. In view
of this pre-emptiveness of literacy, it appears quite impossible to
use the term ‘literature’ to include oral tradition and performance
without subtly but irremediably reducing these somehow to
variants of writing.