On Ong

Ong says of his thesis in The Presence of the Word that it "is sweeping, but it is not reductionist, as reviewers and commentators, so far as I know, have all generously recognized: [my] works do not maintain that the evolution from primary orality through writing and print to an electronic culture, which produces secondary orality, causes or explains everything in human culture and consciousness. Rather, [my] thesis is relationist: major developments, and very likely even all major developments, in culture and consciousness are related, often in unexpected intimacy, to the evolution of the word from primary orality to its present state. But the relationships are varied and complex, with cause and effect often difficult to distinguish" (Interfaces of the Word, 1977: 9-10).
This business of cause and effect is one that gives me the heebie jeebies. It involves the notion of control, of agency. The aphorism, “good things come to those who work hard,” implies a notion of cause and effect that—no matter how often it has been proven wrong—still seems to be somehow true (at least, true enough in the realms of ethos and pathos to be an operative principle in deciding how to approach a life—or a class.
Logos is another thing, though. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to rational discourse. The gospel identifies the Logos as divine. Second-century Christian Apologists identified Jesus as the Logos or Word of God, a distinct intermediary between God and the world. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (who would become Pope Benedict XVI) referred to the Christian religion as the religion of the Logos. It is my sense that both Ong and Kinneavy focused on language in a way that reflects this history. Language is essentially something that is rational and discursive, but separated from the pathos of the mundane world. Language is both an intermediary between humans and divine meaning and it also be seen a meaning itself. Of course, you don’t have to be religious to believe that the medium is the message, but it doesn’t hurt.
Ah well, my head’s starting to hurt, so I’m going to leave off this line of thought.
I enjoyed Eric’s presentation of Ong’s thoughts on the oral nature of language as cyclic; the connection (though not necessarily cause and effect) between the written word and notions of linear progress, between the printing press, democracy, and capitalism. I would have liked a more detailed description of secondary orality, though. Maybe I was too wrapped up in the theoretical world and I missed it, but would have to heard if Ong had some pedagogical methods for the classroom to incorporate those theories into the lives of students.

(Some of this is cut and pasted from Wikipedia.)