Stone Life

Submitted last night for my Humanities course:

Paragraph: in response to Mihai Nadin’s The Civilization of Illiteracy

Will the drive to verbalize, the push towards language, ultimately be the catalyst for its destruction? Mihai Nadin, in the opening chapters of his text The Civilization of Illiteracy, outlines the changing nature of the world and its move from dependence upon traditional language to a technologically advanced, albeit technically illiterate culture. In the course of his opening arguments, it appears that the function of language is the conveyance of that which was previously unspoken and potentially inexpressible, but precisely this creative sense might also carry one inevitably beyond the necessity of language. One might enquire of another, “Isn’t the weather lovely,” but prior to that effusion of speech, there was only an unmet longing to share an experience with another. The unspoken reality existed as an instance in time, but it is through verbalization that one is able to appreciate and experience it fully, both individually and communally as a substantiated moment that is definable by the spoken word. Is it not the function of language that one’s experience is heightened and magnified by the ability to speak or write or even think intelligently on the matter? For instance, one can enjoy the music of a symphony, even to the point of being emotionally moved, but the cognitive function of identifying the source and scope of that feeling allows for full appreciation. The ability to not only quantify but also qualify an experience is peculiar to language alone. Mathematics can give certainty, music can evoke waves of emotional response, gymnastics can release physical energy, but it is the function of language to trump them all and allow for full experience of each through objectification. Enrichment, then, is a primary function of language. It is in this fight for further enrichment of experience that was otherwise complete in itself that pushes mankind beyond language. Language changes experience from the empirical to the intelligible, but this is a translation of an event that was previously an actuality apart from language. What if one could most fully appreciate the experience without translating the event into contrived words with designated definitions and connotations? In a sense, this drive towards language might also drive one back towards the primal experience both before and beyond the spoken word.

I have recently embarked upon what can only be described as either a potentially life-changing or time-wasting endeavor. Last night was meeting number three of the semester for the only "core" course that is required for my degree, and I am more confused about what is expected of me or should be hoped-for than I was a month ago. That (imagine an arrow pointing towards the paragraph in italics) counts as graduate work. Whereas UD would have required citations, concrete foundations.....I don't know - facts!, UTD is built much more around the concept of free thinking and independent research. Get this, they actually encourage creativity or academics.

The above paragraph was written in response to the assignment posted before the end of last week's class. I quote: "Write a paragraph."

(muffled discussion, frantic eyes searching..) "What do you mean by a paragraph? Over one of the books we are to read?"

"Speaking of...Do we have to buy all of these books on the list?"

Once again, I quote: (calmly) "If you are affluent...yes. If you are not...no."

"You just want us to write a paragraph?"

"Yes." (silence abounds).


Last night, while the glimmer of talking about something concretely hung on the horizon, the Dean of the School of the Arts and Humanities popped in for an impromptu Q&A session. A sampling of phrases from the hour of discussion:

"Some of the 'great books' of the Western tradition just aren't worth reading anymore."

"Ulysses is a waste of time."

"We cannot afford to build a curriculum based solely on the past."

"We must adapt our methods and message to a changing culture, not continue down the worn path of tradition."


I think for a minute I could actually feel Socrates rolling over in his grave. I am flabbergasted. This man is committing sacrilege, right? He has no place in the academics, right? I have spent the better part of the last decade having it drilled into me that the 'great tradition' is the only hope for humanity, and it is our duty as academics to carry on this rich tradition, 'irrigating deserts' along the way. UTD's stated mission, as was given through the Dean last night, is to turn this notion on its ear.

I am not sure what I yet think of this, but I am intrigued.