Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 06:20:03 -0700
Mr. Rod Welch
rowelch@attglobal.net
The Welch Company
440 Davis Court #1602
San Francisco, CA 94111 2496
Subject: | Plato, writing, oral discourse |
Rod,
[Responding to your letter on July 20, 2000...]
It is not that orality as such is the stronger approach. It was a question of interactive dialogue, as critically structured -- Socratic dialogue has a definite overall critical structure -- versus monological discourse functioning only to persuade. Plato was against giving speeches because it does not permit interactivity that keeps it under control. That is why he wrote only dialogues. The problem with writing is that it seems to be self-sufficient, not requiring response in order to be complete, whereas all logical control requires an on-going sequence of interactivity.
The idea is that the written word enables the writer to hide out when it comes time to be responsive. It functions as a defense for dogmatism, which is a kind of stupidity. The dialogue as written form is intended to defeat the inherently dogmatic tendencies in the written word. I don't think your view is actually in contradiction with his since your description of managerial conversation is a description of what he thinks of as the equivalent of the written word. Why? Because it is manipulative and uni-directional, no real feedback going on.
[Rod Welch wrote...]
Yes, but the cog sci explanation doesn't in itself have any implications for rectification. It is not that it's wrong but that it doesn't seem to suggest much as regards what is to be done about it.
Sincerely,
Texas Tech University
Dept of Philosophy
Joe Ransdell
Joseph Ransdell
ransdell@door.net
Joseph.Ransdell@ttu.edu
806 742-3275 Home: 806 797-2592
http://www.door.net/arisbe (Peirce Gateway website)
http://www.door.net/arisbe/homepage/ransdell.htm