in: The cultural memory. Scripture Memory and political identity, Munich 6 / 2007 (1992), p.259-292
Similar to the problems of individual differences in intelligence is apparently a discussion of the cultural potential of different writing systems. That to me is not only interesting in that it is my thesis that there is an analogy between the font ("body") and the body body (see my posts from 04.und 05:02:11) confirmed, but also because Assmann here takes a similar position as I respect the intelligence: namely, that it regards the cultural resources, not to the "writing system", but to the "socio-political use" ( see Cultural Memory (1992), p. 269), so the use arrives, coming from a society or culture of their writing system: "Under the concept, writing system 'are questions of structure, the internal structure and functioning a specific written treatment, such as whether a writing ideographic, syllabic, or alphabetic, whether it to a single language bound, or whether they can also play sounds / words / phrases of another language, etc. Under the concept of "writing culture 'it is in contrast to issues of institutions and traditions of writing, dealing with texts, the embedding of writing and written text into society. It is obvious that the consequences of the writing on the level of their social integration, ie the written word to be decided. "(See Cultural Memory (1992), S.264f.)
There are certainly other positions. Assmann cited as an EA Havelock, who ascribes to the Greek alphabet in the cultural potential of philosophy and science, because the Alphabet makes a faithful transcription of oral language, the text makes understanding the cultural context independent. (. See Cultural Memory (1992), S.260ff) In order to understand as the Egyptian hieroglyphics, to get there - so Havelock - without accurate knowledge of the cultural context is not, "Havelock said that non-alphabetical 'writings that hard read were that they could only expect the reader knew. Therefore, the Oriental literature was issued today in cliches and formulas, the complexity of experience to easily recognizable reduced "(Cultural Memory (1992), p.263) - Say.: (? IQ) the cultural potential of the hieroglyphic writing is very low; (? IQ) the cultural potential of the alphabet is very high.
Assmann turns decidedly against such occidental bias for my writing, and if the hieroglyphics and the Semitic writing systems on a par with the Greek alphabet, so far as he notes that each writing system zunächstmal mainly serves their own language perfectly possible to encode: "In the play of their own language, the Semitic consonants writings of the Greek alphabet are second to none. They are just by their relationship to the Semitic language structure less to play foreign languages appropriate "(Cultural Memory (1992), p.263)
reproducibility of foreign languages -. Thus largely independent of cultural contexts - in turn is a particular feature of the Greek alphabet, and now that it is no wonder that it just "have been seafaring traders like the Phoenicians and Greeks" (Cultural Memory (1992), p.263), the alphabet developed and perfected. So here we are again with a priority of the socio-political interest, ie, a precedence of cultural use of the script before the seemingly free-floating 'cultural Potential of the writing system.
is another cultural moment of this writing use Assmann, according to the fact that the writing in Greece, either by priests was still manipulated by political leaders for their own retention of power, - unlike the hieroglyphics, which was a copy of the initiates and priests, and therefore not free was for a public use. Because of this "power vacuum" the penetration of orality in the Greek literary culture promotes. "Has been (See Cultural Memory (1992), p. 269) - Assmann therefore assumes that it is not really for playing the spoken language particularly appropriate alphabet structure was that the verbal element in the Greek literary culture is so strong, but the lack of priestly and political interest in the Scriptures. Thus, the, poetry 'of Homer to the "national (s) Note" of Hellenism and ultimately the Occident (cf. Cultural Memory (1992), p. 269) and take the place of the sacred texts of the Egyptian temples and the Torah .
Assmann leaves no doubt that he appreciates the special cultural potential of the Egyptian hieroglyphs: "It relates with their realistic imagery directly on the world, and with her relay to mark the phonetic and at the semantic level of language. They are not only what is in the voice ', but what is in the psyche' and beyond even what is in the world 'again "(Cultural Memory (1992), p.265) -. Hieroglyphics The open up more levels of text comprehension as the Greek alphabet, which shows only that "what is in the voice", which makes them also so very suitable to be read in context-independent. This context independence means but it is also a cultural loss of worldliness and spiritual expression.
The cultural potential of the writing systems are entirely different, but they do not decide about the use that people of their scripture, - any more than the intelligence difference between the people decide the use they make of their intelligence. Because of this further analogy between the use of Scripture and the use of the understanding it was important to me here again to return to Assmann. For I have before me to address in my next posts with Stanislas Dehaene's research on the relationship of literacy and brain development. And the critical point in this relationship is ultimately determining the extent to which cultural innovations can be attributed to neurophysiological mechanisms.
It is here also address the question, what is the defining moment in this relationship: the Dehaene According limited plasticity of the brain or the historically open, cultural use of these plastic limited brain function.
0 comments:
Post a Comment