5 ms·

And by way of corollary, if you have a strong and resolute oral tradition that can stand the test of 10's of thousands of years, writing systems seem entirely i

And by way of corollary, if you have a strong and resolute oral tradition that can stand the test of 10's of thousands of years, writing systems seem entirely inefficient.

dragonwriter 7y ago
Seems to me that even with strong oral history tradition, writing for documenting (and in case of dispute, providing evidence for) the content of nonpublished private agreements and certain other use cases has compelling advantages.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Indeed, and of course its all about the media. One could see how Gabarnmung is a very, very old library .. with distinct advantages.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
sigstoat 7y ago
seems like selection bias. we’ve no idea how much has been lost. or whether or not the oral historians of X thousand years ago would be satisfied with how their tales have made it down the ages.
- basicplus2 7y ago
  Their stories were essential for survival in finding food and their way across 1000's of miles of open land to different reaources. If they were wrong they would die. I met and sat and talked with indiginous people in fitzroy crossing who walked in from Adelaide across the centre of Australian deserts by the use of their stories.
  - sigstoat 7y ago
    uh. not sure what claim you're trying to imply here? you've provided what I see as an even more profound example of selection bias. the folks who needed an oral tradition to stay alive, and were failed by said oral tradition _died_ and weren't here for you to meet.
    - fit2rule 7y ago
      All literature is subject to the bias you seem to think invalidates these peoples' right to determination. "All lost knowledge is invalid, or else it would have persisted" is, essentially, an imperialist perspective. Knowledge lost because of invasion isn't made less valuable to those who perpetuated it before they were wiped out by colonialists.
      - Jedd 7y ago
        > All literature is subject to the bias you seem to think invalidates these peoples' right to determination. You're clearly very passionate on this subject, though you appear to be arguing against claims that aren't being made. First, your claim that oral tradition seems inefficient compared to writing is extremely hard to defend. The accuracy, scope, density, longevity, and reproducibility of written information has clear advantages over speech-based transmission. Second, I don't see that sigstoat was claiming Australian aborigines have no right to determination. I read the observation at face value -- if you have two groups of people, both relying on oral tradition to pass on information necessary for survival, and only one group is around today -- this does not indicate that all oral tradition was effective, only that some subset / subgroup was. (Naturally this ignores OCP's.) > "All lost knowledge is invalid, or else it would have persisted" is, essentially, an imperialist perspective. Quoting something that wasn't actually said by the person you're responding is misleading. In any case, no one is claiming this. There's a regrettable abundance of 'knowledge' (literature, oral traditions, customs, etc) that have persisted across every society or culture, that by all rights should not have.
        fit2rule 7y ago
        > The accuracy, scope, density, longevity, and reproducibility of written information has clear advantages over speech-based transmission. 37,000 years of oral tradition versus .. 5,000 years (?) of written? The jury is still out.

And by way of corollary, if you have a strong and resolute oral tradition that can stand the test of 10's of thousands of years, writing systems seem entirely inefficient.

dragonwriter 7y ago

Seems to me that even with strong oral history tradition, writing for documenting (and in case of dispute, providing evidence for) the content of nonpublished private agreements and certain other use cases has compelling advantages.

fit2rule 7y ago
Indeed, and of course its all about the media. One could see how Gabarnmung is a very, very old library .. with distinct advantages.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

sigstoat 7y ago

seems like selection bias. we’ve no idea how much has been lost. or whether or not the oral historians of X thousand years ago would be satisfied with how their tales have made it down the ages.

basicplus2 7y ago
Their stories were essential for survival in finding food and their way across 1000's of miles of open land to different reaources. If they were wrong they would die. I met and sat and talked with indiginous people in fitzroy crossing who walked in from Adelaide across the centre of Australian deserts by the use of their stories.
- sigstoat 7y ago
  uh. not sure what claim you're trying to imply here? you've provided what I see as an even more profound example of selection bias. the folks who needed an oral tradition to stay alive, and were failed by said oral tradition _died_ and weren't here for you to meet.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    All literature is subject to the bias you seem to think invalidates these peoples' right to determination. "All lost knowledge is invalid, or else it would have persisted" is, essentially, an imperialist perspective. Knowledge lost because of invasion isn't made less valuable to those who perpetuated it before they were wiped out by colonialists.
    - Jedd 7y ago
      > All literature is subject to the bias you seem to think invalidates these peoples' right to determination. You're clearly very passionate on this subject, though you appear to be arguing against claims that aren't being made. First, your claim that oral tradition seems inefficient compared to writing is extremely hard to defend. The accuracy, scope, density, longevity, and reproducibility of written information has clear advantages over speech-based transmission. Second, I don't see that sigstoat was claiming Australian aborigines have no right to determination. I read the observation at face value -- if you have two groups of people, both relying on oral tradition to pass on information necessary for survival, and only one group is around today -- this does not indicate that all oral tradition was effective, only that some subset / subgroup was. (Naturally this ignores OCP's.) > "All lost knowledge is invalid, or else it would have persisted" is, essentially, an imperialist perspective. Quoting something that wasn't actually said by the person you're responding is misleading. In any case, no one is claiming this. There's a regrettable abundance of 'knowledge' (literature, oral traditions, customs, etc) that have persisted across every society or culture, that by all rights should not have.
      - fit2rule 7y ago
        > The accuracy, scope, density, longevity, and reproducibility of written information has clear advantages over speech-based transmission. 37,000 years of oral tradition versus .. 5,000 years (?) of written? The jury is still out.