And yet, though a philosophical zombie, it acts upon the world, meaning that its crimes, sins, and effects, in some real way, are a demonically incarnate manifestation of the second-order effects of our own sins, failings, and vices, which form its training data, and thereby are the real cause and impelling force moving it into action. Man remains the cause, but AI, like all technologies, as extensions of man, magnifies the power of reach of our neuroses and vices: https://grainofwheat.substack.com/p/the-sins-ai-mind-virus
Dr. Holmes, I think that this is a foundational essay. Thank you.
God created us in His image. Your hearkening to the Tower of Babel is spot-on; and how fascinating that the Correct response was to shatter the unity of language.
In this regard it seems like a response to the Psalm that says of the idols that they have eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear, lips but cannot speak. Idolatry 2.0! New and improved! Bugs (like lips not speaking) fixed!
I appreciate this article and though I may not articulate or contribute to the discussion, the biblical references, I completely understand. AI, another attempt to dethrone God.
Nice article. A friend of Ong is a friend of mine.
Question: Is the notion that speech is the clothing of thought itself the product of a technology (i.e., the alphabet)? And do the electronic media have anything at all to do with the major linguistic currents that were all aswirl and awash over there on the continent in the 20th century (Heidegger, Gadamer, etc., etc.)?
I love the Stagirite. I wouldn't mind getting a few of the first principles tatted on my neck ("There's nothing in the intellect that is not first in the senses."). But I wonder how much his vision was clouded by those alphas and betas and gammas, if you catch my drift.
Last thing: If you haven't read Havelock, add him to your reading list. Many disagree with him, sure. But it's pretty hard not to look at Homer in a totally new light after you read Preface to Plato.
I would opine that the _notion_ that speech is the clothing of thought does indeed result from the invention of the alphabet, but that the _fact_ predates the alphabet, if that distinction makes sense. I might support that from here or there, and I might whip out my Aristotle, but in some large measure my confidence is grounded in experience with my kids. Linguistic leaps and cognitive leaps always track one another.
Whether the electronic media have anything to do with Heidegger, Gadamer, and company is an interesting question, one which you could probably answer as well as I could. However, I see a similar desire to theorize about language earlier in Coleridge and others, so I'm open to the possibility that the 20th century theorists were simply a continuation of an earlier stream set in motion in part by the printing press.
I haven't actually read Havelock yet, but on your recommendation I will in fact put him on a list. I have been thinking lately that I need to get back to Homer--it's been a hot minute.
Ah, Sam Shephard is one of the loveliest people one could care to meet! We have one of the Shephard kids here now in the freshman class.
Thinking more about your previous question, it occurs to me that one of the biggest differences between ancient and modern biblical studies (my doctoral work was in Scripture) is that the ancient sometimes but rarely thought about the text itself, preferring to think about the realities conveyed by the text, while the early modern period brought a turn to the text itself, to the point of almost forgetting about the realities conveyed. There were renewed efforts at language study (in this regard continuing the humanist efforts), foundational studies in genre, endless efforts to recover sources, and on and on. The great virtue and the great weakness of the historical critical movement was a focus on the TEXT, the TEXT, the TEXT. One finds this turn to language outside of biblical studies to, for example in the fascination with folk lore and its genres, Grimm's efforts being the most popularly known. So while I don't know if the electronic media added spice or speed to the mix, I feel confident in saying that the turn to language was well underway before the 20th century, and what is new in the efforts of Gadamer and his ilk is a reaction to the weakness in what went before: a failure to combine attentiveness to language with attentiveness to the reality conveyed by the language.
Anyhow, as you can see, I would enjoy it if someday we met and could continue the conversation! Very stimulating.
And yes, there is a lot of overlap in our scholarly interests, so I'm sure we'd have a decent amount to discuss. My guess is living up there in Wyoming you don't need to pass through Florida on a regular basis. But if you did, you'd be welcome to stop by--ha!
Keep me in mind if you keep researching/publishing on related themes, though. I'll reach out with my contact details if you'd like to share sources, maintain a correspondence, etc. God bless you, sir.
As a dad, my favorite line: “My children often pronounce words correctly as long as they have never seen them in writing, but then mispronounce them incorrigibly from the moment they see them spelled out on a page. That is to say, from that moment on they never speak the word without reference to a visual memory of that word.”
And yet, though a philosophical zombie, it acts upon the world, meaning that its crimes, sins, and effects, in some real way, are a demonically incarnate manifestation of the second-order effects of our own sins, failings, and vices, which form its training data, and thereby are the real cause and impelling force moving it into action. Man remains the cause, but AI, like all technologies, as extensions of man, magnifies the power of reach of our neuroses and vices: https://grainofwheat.substack.com/p/the-sins-ai-mind-virus
Dr. Holmes, I think that this is a foundational essay. Thank you.
God created us in His image. Your hearkening to the Tower of Babel is spot-on; and how fascinating that the Correct response was to shatter the unity of language.
Wow. You know, I hadn't even realized how apt the Babel reference was until you pointed that out.
We seem to be nearing things like this:
“And it was given him to give life to the image of the beast, and that the image of the beast should speak; …”
(And for the sake of completeness):
“…and should cause, that whosoever will not adore the image of the beast, should be slain.”
Apocalypse 13:15
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
In this regard it seems like a response to the Psalm that says of the idols that they have eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear, lips but cannot speak. Idolatry 2.0! New and improved! Bugs (like lips not speaking) fixed!
Agree. And "bowing down to the work of our hands."
Bingo. I hope this kicks off a conversation on the really big picture theological implications here.
I appreciate this article and though I may not articulate or contribute to the discussion, the biblical references, I completely understand. AI, another attempt to dethrone God.
Great essay. Question: does our thought really first enflesh itself in quantity? That does not seem true to me.
Dear sir,
Nice article. A friend of Ong is a friend of mine.
Question: Is the notion that speech is the clothing of thought itself the product of a technology (i.e., the alphabet)? And do the electronic media have anything at all to do with the major linguistic currents that were all aswirl and awash over there on the continent in the 20th century (Heidegger, Gadamer, etc., etc.)?
I love the Stagirite. I wouldn't mind getting a few of the first principles tatted on my neck ("There's nothing in the intellect that is not first in the senses."). But I wonder how much his vision was clouded by those alphas and betas and gammas, if you catch my drift.
Last thing: If you haven't read Havelock, add him to your reading list. Many disagree with him, sure. But it's pretty hard not to look at Homer in a totally new light after you read Preface to Plato.
God bless,
Justin
Well met, my friend!
I would opine that the _notion_ that speech is the clothing of thought does indeed result from the invention of the alphabet, but that the _fact_ predates the alphabet, if that distinction makes sense. I might support that from here or there, and I might whip out my Aristotle, but in some large measure my confidence is grounded in experience with my kids. Linguistic leaps and cognitive leaps always track one another.
Whether the electronic media have anything to do with Heidegger, Gadamer, and company is an interesting question, one which you could probably answer as well as I could. However, I see a similar desire to theorize about language earlier in Coleridge and others, so I'm open to the possibility that the 20th century theorists were simply a continuation of an earlier stream set in motion in part by the printing press.
I haven't actually read Havelock yet, but on your recommendation I will in fact put him on a list. I have been thinking lately that I need to get back to Homer--it's been a hot minute.
I see you're at Wyoming Catholic. That is fantastic. A friend of mine (Sam Shephard) used to teach there.
I've also heard good things about your Cur Deus Verba. I see you've got Ong in the index there, too!
Perhaps one day we shall continue this conversation about the word and its many modalities.
Ah, Sam Shephard is one of the loveliest people one could care to meet! We have one of the Shephard kids here now in the freshman class.
Thinking more about your previous question, it occurs to me that one of the biggest differences between ancient and modern biblical studies (my doctoral work was in Scripture) is that the ancient sometimes but rarely thought about the text itself, preferring to think about the realities conveyed by the text, while the early modern period brought a turn to the text itself, to the point of almost forgetting about the realities conveyed. There were renewed efforts at language study (in this regard continuing the humanist efforts), foundational studies in genre, endless efforts to recover sources, and on and on. The great virtue and the great weakness of the historical critical movement was a focus on the TEXT, the TEXT, the TEXT. One finds this turn to language outside of biblical studies to, for example in the fascination with folk lore and its genres, Grimm's efforts being the most popularly known. So while I don't know if the electronic media added spice or speed to the mix, I feel confident in saying that the turn to language was well underway before the 20th century, and what is new in the efforts of Gadamer and his ilk is a reaction to the weakness in what went before: a failure to combine attentiveness to language with attentiveness to the reality conveyed by the language.
Anyhow, as you can see, I would enjoy it if someday we met and could continue the conversation! Very stimulating.
Very well put, indeed.
And yes, there is a lot of overlap in our scholarly interests, so I'm sure we'd have a decent amount to discuss. My guess is living up there in Wyoming you don't need to pass through Florida on a regular basis. But if you did, you'd be welcome to stop by--ha!
Keep me in mind if you keep researching/publishing on related themes, though. I'll reach out with my contact details if you'd like to share sources, maintain a correspondence, etc. God bless you, sir.
As a dad, my favorite line: “My children often pronounce words correctly as long as they have never seen them in writing, but then mispronounce them incorrigibly from the moment they see them spelled out on a page. That is to say, from that moment on they never speak the word without reference to a visual memory of that word.”
A deeply insightful and incisive essay, Dr. Holmes! Thank you.
P.S. "golem," not "Gollum." ;-)
Mistake corrected!
Thanks! I enjoyed the unintentional Tolkien reference, though.
Yeah, it was a Frodian slip. (not sure that works)
Excellent! I’ll have to remember “Frodian slip.”